457 
.92 

1898 


GIFT   OF 

tat:,1    of    Creor^e    D. 
^~  ;i    o^      P  ^  o 


LITTLE   MASTERPIECES 


Little  Masterpieces 

Edited  by  Bliss  Perry 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 


EARLY  SPEECHES 
SPRINGFIELD   SPEECH 
COOPER  UNION   SPEECH 
INAUGURAL  ADDRESSES 
GETTYSBURG  ADDRESS 

SELECTED  LETTERS 
LINCOLN'S  LOST  SPEECH 


NEW  YORK 

DOUBLEDAY   &    McCLURE   CO. 
1898 


Copyright,  1894,  by  JOHN  G. 

NlCOLAY    AND   JOHN     HAY. 


Copyright,  1898,  by 
DOUBLEDAY   &  MCCLURE  CO. 


Acknowledgment   is   due   The    Century    Co,  for  per. 
mission  to  use  selections  from  the  text  of  their 
complete  edition  of  the  Works  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  edited  by  John   G. 
Nicolay   and  John    Hay. 


"'' 


He  knew  to  bide  his  time, 

And  can  his  fame  abide, 

Still  patient  in  his  simple  faith  sublime,  ' 

Till  the  wise  years  decide. 

Great  captains,  with  their  guns  and  drums, 

Disturb  our  judgment  for  the  hour, 

But  at  last  silence  comes  ; 

These  all    are   gone,  and,  standing   like   a 
tower, 

Our  children  shall  behold  his  fame, 

The  kindly-earnest,  brave,  foreseeing  man, 

Sagacious,     patient,     dreading    praise,    not 
blame, 

New  birth  of  our  new  soil,  the  first  Ameri 
can." 

LOWELL,  Commemoration  Ode. 


Introdiiction 


Editor's  Introduction 

"  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  of  him  [Lincoln] 
that  he  is  among  the  greatest  masters  of  prose 
ever  produced  by  the  English  race." — The 
{London}  Spectator. 

IT  is  said  that  Nathaniel  Hawthorne  was  once 
asked  the  secret  of  his  style.  That  consummate 
writer  replied — no  doubt  with  one  of  his  in 
scrutable  smiles — "  It  is  the  result  of  a  great 
deal  of  practice.  It  comes  from  the  desire  to 
tell  the  simple  truth  as  honestly  and  vividly  as 
I  can."  The  flawless  perfection  of  Lincoln's 
style  in  his  noblest  utterances  eludes  a  final 
analysis  as  completely  as  the  exquisite  pages  of 
our  great  romancer,  yet  in  striving  to  under 
stand  some  of  the  causes  of  that  perfection  we 
may  use  the  hint  which  Hawthorne  has  given 
us. 

Lincoln  had  "  a  great  deal  of  practice"  in  the 
art  of  speech  long  before  his  debates  against 
Douglas  made  him  known  to  the  nation  :  end 
less  talks  in  country  stores,  endless  jests  in 
frontier  taverns,  twenty  years  of  pleading  in 
the  circuit  courts,  twenty-five  years  of  constant 
political  discussion.  His  law  partner  has  noted 
his  incessant  interest  in  the  precise  meaning  of 
words.  His  reputation  for  clear  statement  to 
vii 


Introduction 

a  jury  was  the  result  of  his  passion  for  putting 
ideas  into  language  "  plain  enough  for  any  boy 
to  comprehend. "  Lincoln's  mind  worked  slow 
ly,  and  he  was  long  in  finding  the  words  that 
exactly  expressed  his  thoughts,  but  when  he 
had  once  hit  upon  the  word  or  phrase  he  never 
forgot  it.  "  He  read  less  and  thought  more 
than  any  man  in  the  country,"  says  Herndon 
with  a  sort  of  pride,  and  it  should  be  remem 
bered  that  throughout  his  gradual  development 
as  a  master  of  his  mother  tongue  he  was  pre 
occupied,  not  with  words  for  their  own  sake, 
but  solely  with  words  as  the  garb  of  ideas. 

Furthermore,  Lincoln's  mental  characteristics 
illustrate  with  singular  force  the  remark  of 
Hawthorne  that  style  is  the  result  of  a  desire  to 
tell  the  simple  truth  as  honestly  and  vividly  as 
one  can.  He  was  "  Honest  Abe  ;"  not  indeed 
so  innocent  and  frank  and  unsophisticated  as 
many  people  believed  ;  not  a  man  who  told  all 
he  knew,  by  any  means  ;  but  yet  a  man  essen 
tially  fair-minded.  He  looked  into  the  nature 
of  things.  He  read  human  nature  dispassion 
ately.  A  man  of  intense  feeling,  he  was  never 
theless,  in  mature  life  at  least,  without  senti 
mentality.  He  was  not  fooled  by  phrases.  As 
a  debater,  he  made  no  attempt  to  mislead  his 
audience  ;  as  President,  when  he  found  frank 
conversation  impossible,  he  told  a  humorous 
story  of  more  or  less  remote  bearing  upon  the 
subject  in  hand.  He  kept  inviolate  his  mental 
integrity.  And  without  integrity  of  mind  the 
viii 


Introduction 

would-be  master  of  speech  becomes  a  mere  jug 
gler  with  words.  In  the  letter  to  Thuiiow 
Weed  concerning  the  Second  Inaugural  Ad 
dress,  Lincoln  described  that  memorable  utter 
ance  as  "  a  truth  which  I  thought  needed  to  be 
told."  No  description  could  be  more  noble. 

That  Lincoln's  gift  of  humor  added  much  to 
the  vividness  and  homely  naturalness  of  his 
style  will  not  be  questioned.  But  the  connec 
tion  between  fair-mindedness  and  humor  is  not 
always  remembered.  The  man  of  true  humor 
—not,  of  course,  the  mere  joker  or  wit — sees  all 
sides  of  a  proposition.  He  recognizes  instinc 
tively  its  defects  of  proportion,  its  incongruities. 
It  is  the  great  humorists  who  have  drawn  the 
truest  pictures  of  human  life,  because  their 
humor  was  a  constant  corrective  against  one- 
sidedness.  Lincoln's  mind  had  the  impartial 
ity,  the  freedom  from  prejudice,  the  flexibility 
of  sympathy,  which  belongs  to  the  humorist 
alone. 

It  has  sometimes  been  argued  that  his  fond 
ness  for  story-telling  showed  a  deficient  com 
mand  of  language  ;  that  knowing  his  inability 
to  express  his  ideas  directly,  he  conveyed  them 
indirectly  by  an  anecdote.  It  would  probably 
be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  the  stories  were 
a  proof  of  his  understanding  of  the  limitations 
of  language.  He  divined  the  boundaries  of  ex 
pression  through  formal  speech,  and  knew 
when  a  picture,  a  parable,  would  best  serve  his 
turn. 

ix 


Introduction 

As  great  responsibilities  came  to  rest  upon 
him,  as  the  harassing  problems  of  our  national 
life  pressed  closer  and  closer,  the  lonely  Presi 
dent  grew  more  clear-eyed  and  certain  of  his 
course.  The  politician  was  lost  in  the  states 
man.  His  whole  life,  indeed,  was  a  process  of 
enfranchisement  from  selfish  and  narrow  views. 
He  stood  at  last  on  a  serener  height  than  other 
men  of  his  epoch,  breathing  an  ampler  air,  per 
ceiving  more  truly  the  eternal  realities.  And 
his  style  changed  as  the  man  changed.  What 
he  saw  and  felt  at  his  solitary  final  post  he  has 
in  part  made  known,  through  a  slowly  perfected 
instrument  of  expression.  So  transparent  is 
the  language  of  the  Gettysburg  Address  and  of 
the  Second  Inaugural  that  one  may  read  through 
them,  as  through  a  window,  Lincoln's  wise  and 
gentle  and  unselfish  heart.  Other  praise  is 
needless. 

The  selections  included  in  this  volume  are 
designed  to  illustrate  the  steady  development 
of  Lincoln's  literary  power.  They  begin  with 
a  few  specimens  of  his  earlier  style,  which  was 
direct,  forceful,  and  manly,  but  not  markedly 
better  than  that  of  many  of  his  contemporaries. 
The  famous  "  Lost  Speech"  of  May  29,  1856, 
has  been  reprinted  in  the  Appendix.  As  it 
does  not  present  Lincoln's  exact  language 
throughout,  it  could  scarcely  be  placed  with  the 
other  selections,  but  its  personal  and  historical 
interest  is  so  great  that  lovers  of  Lincoln  will 
be  glad  to  have  it  preserved  in  convenient  form. 


Introduction 

With  the  Springfield  speech  of  June  16,  1858, 
Lincoln  entered  upon  a  new  phase  of  his  career. 
Its  careful  enunciation  of  a  great  political  prin 
ciple  made  it  the  turning-point  of  a  memorable 
campaign.  The  significance  of  its  opening 
paragraph,  in  particular,  has  been  discussed  in 
the  prefatory  note  to  the  speech  itself,  and  need 
not  be  repeated  here.  The  space-limit  of  the 
volumes  in  this  series  forbids  the  presentation 
of  any  of  the  entire  speeches  of  the  joint  debates 
with  Douglas,  and  so  closely  inter-related,  so 
full  of  allusion  and  cross  reference  are  all  of 
those  speeches  that  detached  paragraphs  would 
give  little  conception  of  the  qualities  displayed 
by  either  of  the  debaters.  The  Cooper  Union 
speech  of  February  25,  1860,  however,  goes 
over  much  of  the  ground  of  the  Douglas  de 
bates. 

The  remaining  speeches  in  the  volume  belong 
to  Lincoln's  career  as  President.  They  range 
from  the  most  informal  addresses  to  the  In 
augurals.  The  Emancipation  Proclamation  is 
also  included.  The  letters  exhibit  still  another 
side  of  Lincoln's  strange  and  fascinating  indi 
viduality.  In  compression  and  clear-cut  force, 
in  their  humor  and  homely  pathos,  in  their 
shrewd  knowledge  of  character,  these  letters 
are  among  the  most  extraordinary  ever  written. 
While  they  afford  new  glimpses  into  Lincoln's 
nature,  it  is  true  of  them,  as  it  is  of  his  other 
writings,  that  they  express  without  explaining 
the  secret  of  his  personality.  One  closes  a  vol- 
xi 


Introduction 

ume  of  Lincoln's  addresses  and  letters  with 
something  of  the  feeling  that  Walt  Whitman 
has  uttered  with  regard  to  Lincoln's  portraits  : 
"  None  of  the  artists  or  pictures  has  caught  the 
deep  though  subtle  and  indirect  expression  of 
this  man's  face.  There  is  something  else 
there."  BLISS  PERRY. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Editor's  Introduction  v 

Speeches — Selected 

The  Whigs  and  the  Mexican  War  .           3 

Notes  for  a  Law  Lecture            .  .           7 

Fragment  on  Slavery     .             .  .11 
The    Dred    Scott    Decision    and    the 

Declaration  of  Independence  .  13 
Springfield  Speech  .  .  .23 
Cooper  Union  Speech  .  .  -  37 
Farewell  at  Springfield  .  .  70 
Speech  in  Independence  Hall,  Phila 
delphia  .  .  .  71 
First  Inaugural  Address  .  .  74 
Emancipation  Proclamation  .  .  90 
Gettysburg  Address  .  94 
Speech  to  i66th  Ohio  Regiment  .  96 
Response  to  a  Serenade  .  .  98 
Reply  to  Committee  on  Electoral  Count  101 
Second  Inaugural  Address  .  .  102 

Letters 

To  McClellan      ....        109 

To  Seward           .             .             .  .        in 

To  Greeley          .             .             .  113 
To  the  Workingmen  of  Manchester      .        115 

To  Hooker          .             .             .  .118 

To  Burnside       .             .             .  .120 

To  Edward  Everett        .             .  .121 

To  Grant             .             .             .  .122 

To  Mrs.  Bixby  .             .             .  .123 

To  Thurlow  Weed          .             .  .124 

Appendix 

Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  .             .  .       127 
xiii 


Selected  Speeches 


Selections    from    Lincoln's 
Speeches  and  Letters 

The  Whigs  and  the  Mexican  War 

July  27,  1848 

[An  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  while  Lincoln  was  a 
Congressman  from  Illinois.  The  speech  was  in 
support  of  General  Taylor,  the  Whig  candidate 
for  the  Presidency.  Lincoln  had  opposed  Presi 
dent  Polk;s  declaration  of  war  against  Mexico, 
had  introduced  resolutions  of  inquiry  on  that 
subject,  and  made  a  strong  speech  on  Jan 
uary  12,  1848,  explaining  his  own  attitude. 
The  speech  of  July  27  was  full  of  wit,  at  times 
more  caustic  than  refined.  The  extract  here 
presented  sums  up  clearly  Lincoln's  vie\vs  as 
to  the  Mexican  War,  and  is  a  good  example  of 
his  best  parliamentary  style  at  this  stage  of  his 
career.] 

BUT,  as  General  Taylor  is,  par  excellence, 
the  hero  of  the  Mexican  War,  and  as  you  Demo 
crats  say  we  Whigs  have  always  opposed  the 
war,  you  think  it  must  be  very  awkward  and 
embarrassing  for  us  to  go  for  General  Taylor. 
The  declaration  that  we  have  always  opposed 
the  war  is  true  or  false,  according  as  one  may 
understand  the  term  "  oppose  the  war."  If  to 
say  "  the  war  was  unnecessarily  and  unconsti- 
3 


Abraham  Lincoln 

tutionally  commenced  by  the  President"  be  op 
posing  the  war,  then  the  Whigs  have  very  gen 
erally  opposed  it.  Whenever  they  have  spoken 
at  all,  they  have  said  this  ;  and  they  have  said 
it  on  what  has  appeared  good  reason  to  them. 
The  marching  an  army  into  the  midst  of  a 
peaceful  Mexican  settlement,  frightening  the 
inhabitants  away,  leaving  their  growing  crops 
and  other  property  to  destruction,  to  you  may 
appear  a  perfectly  amiable,  peaceful,  unprovok- 
ing  procedure  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  so  to  us. 
So  to  call  such  an  act,  to  us  appears  no  other 
than  a  naked,  impudent  absurdity,  and  we 
speak  of  it  accordingly.  But  if,  when  the  war 
had  begun,  and  had  become  the  cause  of  the 
country,  the  giving  of  our  money  and  our  blood, 
in  common  with  yours,  was  support  of  the  war, 
then  it  is  not  true  that  we  have  always  opposed 
the  war.  With  few  individual  exceptions,  you 
have  constantly  had  our  votes  here  for  all  the 
necessary  supplies.  And,  more  than  this,  you 
have  had  the  services,  the  blood,  and  the  lives 
of  our  political  brethren  in  every  trial  and  on 
every  field.  The  beardless  boy  and  the  mature 
man,  the  humble  and  the  distinguished— you 
have  had  them.  Through  suffering  and  death, 
by  disease  and  in  battle,  they  have  endured  and 
fought  and  fell  with  you.  Clay  and  Webster 
each  gave  a  son,  never  to  be  returned.  From 
the  State  of  my  own  residence,  besides  other 
worthy  but  less  known  Whig  names,  we  sent 
Marshall,  Morrison,  Baker,  and  Hardin  ;  they 
4 


The  Whigs  and  Mexican  War 

all  fought,  and  one  fell,  and  in  the  fall  of  that 
one  we  lost  our  best  Whig  man.  Nor  were  the 
Whigs  few  in  number,  or  laggard  in  the  day  of 
danger.  In  that  fearful,  bloody,  breathless 
struggle  at  Buena  Vista,  where  each  man's  hard 
task  was  to  beat  back  five  foes  or  die  himself, 
of  the  five  high  officers  who  perished,  four  were 
Whigs. 

In  speaking  of  this,  I  mean  no  odious  com 
parison  between  the  lion-hearted  Whigs  and 
the  Democrats  who  fought  there.  On  other 
occasions,  and  among  the  lower  officers  and 
privates  on  that  occasion,  I  doubt  not  the  pro 
portion  was  different.  I  wish  to  do  justice  to 
all.  I  think  of  all  those  brave  men  as  Ameri 
cans,  in  whose  proud  fame,  as  an  American,  I 
too  have  a  share.  Many  of  them,  Whigs  and 
Democrats,  are  my  constituents  and  personal 
friends  ;  and  I  thank  them, — more  than  thank 
them, — one  and  all,  for  the  high  imperishable 
honor  they  have  conferred  on  our  common 
State. 

But  the  distinction  between  the  cause  of  the 
President  in  beginning  the  war,  and  the  cause 
of  the  country  after  it  was  begun,  is  a  distinc 
tion  which  you  cannot  perceive.  To  you  the 
President  and  the  country  seem  to  be  all  one. 
You  are  interested  to  see  no  distinction  between 
them  ;  and  I  venture  to  suggest  that  probably 
your  interest  blinds  you  a  little.  We  see  the 
distinction,  as  we  think,  clearly  enough  ;  and 
our  friends  who  have  fought  in  the  war  have 
5 


Abraham   Lincoln 

no  difficulty  in  seeing  it  also.  What  those  who 
have  fallen  would  say,  were  they  alive  and 
here,  of  course  we  can  never  know  ;  but  with 
those  who  have  returned  there  is  no  difficulty. 
Colonel  Haskell  and  Major  Gaines,  members 
here,  both  fought  in  the  war,  and  one  of  them 
underwent  extraordinary  perils  and  hardships  ; 
still  they,  like  all  other  Whigs  here,  vote,  on 
the  record,  that  the  war  was  unnecessarily  and 
unconstitutionally  commenced  by  the  Presi 
dent.  And  even  General  Taylor  himself,  the 
noblest  Roman  of  them  all,  has  declared  that 
as  a  citizen,  and  particularly  as  a  soldier,  it  is 
sufficient  for  him  to  know  that  his  country  is  at 
war  with  a  foreign  nation,  to  do  all  in  his  power 
to  bring  it  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  termina 
tion  by  the  most  vigorous  and  energetic  opera 
tions,  without  inquiry  about  its  justice,  or  any 
thing  else  connected  with  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  our  Democratic  friends  be 
comforted  with  the  assurance  that  we  are  con 
tent  with  our  position,  content  with  our  com 
pany,  and  content  with  our  candidate  ;  and 
that  although  they,  in  their  generous  sympathy, 
think  we  ought  to  be  miserable,  we  really  are 
not,  and  that  they  may  dismiss  the  great  anx 
iety  they  have  on  our  account. 


Notes  for  a  Law  Lecture 
July  i,  1850 

[These  notes  show  Lincoln's  power  of  straight 
forward  statement  and  his  good  sense.  They 
are  of  additional  interest  as  indicating  his  atti 
tude  toward  professional  success.] 

I  AM  not  an  accomplished  lawyer.  I  find 
quite  as  much  material  for  a  lecture  in  those 
points  wherein  I  have  failed  as  in  those  wherein 
I  have  been  moderately  successful.  The  lead 
ing  rule  for  the  lawyer,  as  for  the  man  of  every 
other  calling,  is  diligence.  Leave  nothing  for 
to-morrow  which  can  be  done  to-day.  Never 
let  your  correspondence  fall  behind.  Whatever 
piece  of  business  you  have  in  hand,  before  stop 
ping,  do  all  the  labor  pertaining  to  it  which  can 
then  be  done.  When  you  bring  a  common-law 
suit,  if  you  have  the  facts  for  doing  so,  write 
the  declaration  at  once.  If  a  law  point  be  in 
volved,  examine  the  books,  and  note  the  au 
thority  you  rely  on  upon  the  declaration  itself, 
where  you  are  sure  to  find  it  when  wanted. 
The  same  of  defenses  and  pleas.  In  business 
not  likely  to  be  litigated, — ordinary  collection 
cases,  foreclosures,  partitions,  and  the  like, — 
7 


Abraham  Lincoln 

make  all  examinations  of  titles,  and  note  them, 
and  even  draft  orders  and  decrees  in  advance. 
This  course  has  a  triple  advantage  ;  it  avoids 
omissions  and  neglect,  saves  your  labor  when 
once  done,  performs  the  labor  out  of  court  when 
you  have  leisure,  rather  than  in  court  when  you 
have  not.  Extemporaneous  speaking  should 
be  practised  and  cultivated.  It  is  the  lawyer's 
avenue  to  the  public.  However  able  and  faith 
ful  he  may  be  in  other  respects,  people  are  slow 
to  bring  him  business  if  he  cannot  make  a 
speech.  And  yet  there  is  not  a  more  fatal  error 
to  young  lawyers  than  relying  too  much  on 
speech-making.  If  any  one,  upon  his  rare 
powers  of  speaking,  shall  claim  an  exemption 
from  the  drudgery  of  the  law,  his  case  is  a  fail 
ure  in  advance. 

Discourage  litigation.  Persuade  your  neigh 
bors  to  compromise  whenever  you  can.  Point 
out  to  them  how  the  nominal  winner  is  often  a 
real  loser — in  fees,  expenses,  and  waste  of  time. 
As  a  peacemaker  the  lawyer  has  a  superior  op 
portunity  of  being  a  good  man.  There  will 
still  be  business  enough. 

Never  stir  up  litigation.  A  worse  man  can 
scarcely  be  found  than  one  who  does  this.  Who 
can  be  more  nearly  a  fiend  than  he  who  habit 
ually  overhauls  the  register  of  deeds  in  search 
of  defects  in  titles,  whereon  to  stir  up  strife, 
and  put  money  in  his  pocket?  A  moral  tone 
ought  to  be  infused  into  the  profession  which 
should  drive  such  men  out  of  it. 


Notes  for  a  Law  Lecture 

The  matter  of  fees  is  important,  far  beyond 
the  mere  question  of  bread  and  butter  involved. 
Properly  attended  to,  fuller  justice  is  done  to 
both  lawyer  and  client.  An  exorbitant  fee 
should  never  be  claimed.  As  a  general  rule 
never  take  your  whole  fee  in  advance,  nor  any 
more  than  a  small  retainer.  When  fully  paid 
beforehand,  you  are  more  than  a  common  mor 
tal  if  you  can  feel  the  same  interest  in  the  case, 
as  if  something  was  still  in  prospect  for  you,  as 
well  as  for  your  client.  And  when  you  lack  in 
terest  in  the  case  the  job  will  very  likely  lack 
skill  and  diligence  in  the  performance.  Settle 
the  amount  of  fee  and  take  a  note  in  advance. 
Then  you  will  feel  that  you  are  working  for 
something,  and  you  are  sure  to  do  your  work 
faithfully  and  well.  Never  sell  a  fee  note — at 
least  not  before  the  consideration  service  is  per 
formed.  It  leads  to  negligence  and  dishonesty 
— negligence  by  losing -interest  in  the  case,  and 
dishonesty  in  refusing  to  refund  when  you  have 
allowed  the  consideration  to  fail. 

There  is  a  vague  popular  belief  that  lawyers 
are  necessarily  dishonest.  I  say  vague,  because 
when  we  consider  to  what  extent  confidence 
and  honors  are  reposed  in  and  conferred  upon 
lawyers  by  the  people,  it  appears  improbable 
that  their  impression  of  dishonesty  is  very  dis 
tinct  and  vivid.  Yet  the  impression  is  common, 
almost  universal.  Let  no  young  man  choosing 
the  law  for  a  calling  for  a  moment  yield  to  the 
popular  belief — resolve  to  be  honest  at  all 
9 


Abraham   Lincoln 

events  ;  and  if  in  your  own  judgment  you  can 
not  be  an  honest  lawyer,  resolve  to  be  honest 
without  being  a  lawyer.  Choose  some  other 
occupation,  rather  than  one  in  the  choosing  of 
which  you  do,  in  advance,  consent  to  he  a 
knave. 


iO 


Fragment  on  Slavery 

July  i,  1854 

[From  early  manhood  Lincoln's  sympathies 
had  been  strongly  enlisted  on  behalf  of  the 
slaves.  The  contrast  between  slave  labor  and 
free  labor  has  never  been  stated  more  tersely 
and  vividly  than  here.  The  sentence, ' '  Twenty- 
five  years  ago  I  was  a  hired  laborer,"  should  be 
noted.] 

EQUALITY  in  society  alike  beats  inequality, 
whether  the  latter  be  of  the  British  aristocratic 
sort  or  of  the  domestic  slavery  sort.  We  know 
Southern  men  declare  that  their  slaves  are  bet 
ter  off  than  hired  laborers  amongst  us.  How 
little  they  know  whereof  they  speak  !  There  is 
no  permanent  class  of  hired  laborers  amongst 
us.  Twenty-five  years  ago  I  was  a  hired  la 
borer.  The  hired  laborer  of  yesterday  labors 
on  his  own  account  to-day,  and  will  hire  others 
to  labor  for  him  to-morrow.  Advancement — 
improvement  in  condition — is  the  order  of  things 
in  a  society  of  equals.  As  labor  is  the  common 
burden  of  our  race,  so  the  effort  of  some  to  shift 
their  share  of  the  burden  onto  the  shoulders  of 
others  is  the  great  durable  curse  of  the  race. 
ii 


Abraham  Lincoln 

Originally  a  curse  for  transgression  upon  the 
whole  race,  when,  as  by  slavery,  it  is  concen 
trated  on  a  part  only,  it  becomes  the  double- 
refined  curse  of  God  upon  his  creatures. 

Free  labor  has  the  inspiration  of  hope  ;  pure 
slavery  has  no  hope.  The  power  of  hope  upon 
human  exertion  and  happiness  is  wonderful. 
The  slave-master  himself  has  a  conception  of 
it,  and  hence  the  system  of  tasks  among  slaves. 
The  slave  whom  you  cannot  drive  with  the  lash 
to  break  seventy-five  pounds  of  hemp  in  a  day, 
if  you  will  task  him  to  break  a  hundred,  and 
promise  him  pay  for  all  he  does  over,  he  will 
break  you  a  hundred  and  fifty.  You  have  sub 
stituted  hope  for  the  rod.  And  yet  perhaps  it 
does  not  occur  to  you  that  to  the  extent  of  your 
gain  in  the  case,  you  have  given  up  the  slave 
system  and  adopted  the  free  system  of  labor. 


12 


The  Dred  Scott  Decision  and  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence 

June  26,  1857 

[This  is  an  extract  from  a  speech  delivered 
in  Springfield,  111.  It  was  intended  as  a  reply 
to  a  speech  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  two  weeks 
earlier  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories.  Douglas  was  the  author  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  passed  in  1854,  which  gave  the- 
Territories  the  right  to  decide  whether  they 
would  have  slavery.  The  Dred  Scott  decision 
was  published  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  1857,  and  was  >  the  effect  that 
a  slave  or  the  descendant  of  -<.  slave  could  not 
be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  or  have  any 
standing  in  the  Federal  courts.  Lincoln  con 
trasts  the  spirit  of  this  decision  with  that  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  with  a  skill  and 
force  that  will  be  apparent  to  every  reader. 
He  repeated  the  substance  of  the  argument 
over  and  over  again  in  his  joint  debates  with 
Douglas  in  the  following  year.] 

I  HAVE  said,  in  substance,  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  in  part  based  on  assumed  histori 
cal  facts  which  were  not  really  true,  and  I  ought 
not  to  leave  the  subject  without  giving  some 
reasons  for  saying  this  ;  I  therefore  give  an  in 
stance  or  two,  which  I  think  fully  sustain  me. 
Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  delivering  the  opinion 
13 


Abraham  Lincoln 

of  the  majority  of  the  court,  insists  at  great 
length  that  negroes  were  no  part  of  the  people 
who  made,  or  for  whom  was  made,  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  or  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

On  the  contrary,  Judge  Curtis,  in  his  dissent 
ing  opinion,  shows  that  in  five  of  the  then  thir 
teen  States— to  wit,  New  Hampshire,  Massa 
chusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  North 
Carolina — free  negroes  were  voters,  and  in  pro 
portion  to  their  numbers  had  the  same  part  in 
making  the  Constitution  that  the  white  people 
had.  He  shows  this  with  so  much  particularity 
as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  its  truth  ;  and  as  a  sort 
of  conlusion  on  that  point,  holds  the  following 
language : 

"  The  Constitution  was  ordained  and  estab 
lished  by  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
through  the  action,  in  each  State,  of  those  per 
sons  who  were  qualified  by  its  laws  to  act  there 
on  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  all  other  citizens 
of  the  State.  In  some  of  the  States,  as  we  have 
seen,  colored  persons  were  among  those  quali 
fied  by  law  to  act  on  the  subject.  These  col 
ored  persons  were  not  only  included  in  the  body 
of  '  the  people  of  the  United  States  '  by  whom 
the  Constitution  was  ordained  and  established  ; 
but  in  at  least  five  of  the  States  they  had  the 
power  to  act,  and  doubtless  did  act,  by  their 
suffrages,  upon  the  question  of  its  adoption." 

Again,  Chief  Justice  Taney  says  : 

"  It  is  difficult  at  this  day  to  realize  the  state 
of  public  opinion,  in  relation  to  that  unfortunate 
race,  which  prevailed  in  the  civilized  and  en- 


Dred  Scott  Decision 

lightened  portions  of  the  world  at  the  time  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  when  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  framed 
and  adopted." 

And  again,  after  quoting  from  the  Declara 
tion,  he  says  : 

"  The  general  words  above  quoted  would 
seem  to  include  the  whole  human  family,  and 
if  they  were  used  in  a  similar  instrument  at  this 
day,  would  be  so  understood." 

In  these  the  Chief  Justice  does  not  directly 
assert,  but  plainly  assumes,  as  a  fact,  that  the 
public  estimate  of  the  black  man  is  more  favor 
able  now  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Revo 
lution.  This  assumption  is  a  mistake.  In  some 
trifling  particulars  the  condition  of  that  race 
has  been  ameliorated  ;  but  as  a  whole,  in  this 
country,  the  change  between  then  and  now  is 
decidedly  the  other  way  ;  and  their  ultimate 
destiny  has  never  appeared  so  hopeless  as  in 
the  last  three  or  four  years.  In  two  of  the  five 
States — New  Jersey  and  North  Carolina — that 
then  gave  the  free  negro  the  right  of  voting, 
the  right  has  since  been  taken  away,  and  in  a 
third — New  York — it  has  been  greatly  abridged ; 
while  it  has  not  been  extended,  so  far  as  I  know, 
to  a  single  additional  State,  though  the  number 
of  the  States  has  more  than  doubled.  In  those 
days,  as  I  understand,  masters  could,  at  their 
own  pleasure,  emancipate  their  slaves ;  but 
since  then  such  legal  restraints  have  been  made 
upon  emancipation  as  to  amount  almost  to  pro- 
15 


Abraham  Lincoln 

hibition.  In  those  days  legislatures  held  the 
unquestioned  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  their 
respective  States,  but  now  it  is  becoming  quite 
fashionable  for  State  constitutions  to  withhold 
that  power  from  the  legislatures.  In  those 
days,  by  common  consent,  the  spread  of  the 
black  man's  bondage  to  the  new  countries  was 
prohibited,  but  now  Congress  decides  that  it 
will  not  continue  the  prohibition,  and  the  Su 
preme  Court  decides  that  it  could  not  if  it  would. 
In  those  days  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
was  held  sacred  by  all,  and  thought  to  include 
all  ;  but  now,  to  aid  in  making  the  bondage  of 
the  negro  universal  and  eternal,  it  is  assailed 
and  sneered  at  and  construed,  and  hawked  at 
and  torn,  till,  if  its  framers  could  rise  from  their 
graves,  they  could  not  at  all  recognize  it.  All 
the  powers  of  earth  seem  rapidly  combining 
against  him.  Mammon  is  after  him,  ambition 
follows,  philosophy  follows,  and  the  theology 
of  the  day  is  fast  joining  the  cry.  They  have 
him  in  his  prison-house  ;  they  have  searched 
his  person,  and  left  no  prying  instrument  with 
him.  One  after  another  they  have  closed  the 
heavy  iron  doors  upon  him  ;  and  now  they  have 
him,  as  it  were,  bolted  in  with  a  lock  of  a  hun 
dred  keys,  which  can  never  be  unlocked  with 
out  the  concurrence  of  every  key — the  keys  in 
the  hands  of  a  hundred  different  men.  and  they 
scattered  to  a  hundred  different  and  distant 
places  ;  and  they  stand  musing  as  to  what  in 
vention,  in  all  the  dominions  of  mind  and  mat- 
16 


Dred  Scott  Decision 

ter,  can  be  produced  to  make  the  impossibility 
of  his  escape  more  complete  than  it  is. 

It  is  grossly  incorrect  to  say  or  assume  that 
the  public  estimate  of  the  negro  is  more  favor 
able  now  than  it  was  at  the  origin  of  the  gov 
ernment. 

Three  years  and  a  half  ago,  Judge  Douglas 
brought  forward  his  famous  Nebraska  bill. 
The  country  was  at  once  in  a  blaze.  He  scorned 
all  opposition,  and  carried  it  through  Congress. 
Since  then  he  has  seen  himself  superseded  in  a 
presidential  nomination  by  one  indorsing  the 
general  doctrine  of  his  measure,  but  at  the 
same  time  standing  clear  of  the  odium  of  its 
untimely  agitation  and  its  gross  breach  of  na 
tional  faith  ;  and  he  has  seen  that  successful 
rival  constitutionally  elected,  not  by  the  strength 
of  friends,  but  by  the  division  of  adversaries, 
being  in  a  popular  minority  of  nearly  four  hun 
dred  thousand  votes.  He  has  seen  his  chief 
aids  in  his  own  State,  Shields  and  Richardson, 
politically  speaking,  successively  tried,  con 
victed,  and  executed  for  an  offense  not  their 
own,  but  his.  And  now  he  sees  his  own  case 
standing  next  on  the  docket  for  trial. 

There  is  a  natural  disgust  in  the  minds  of 
nearly  all  white  people  at  the  idea  of  an  indis 
criminate  amalgamation  of  the  white  and  black 
races  ;  and  Judge  Douglas  evidently  is  basing 
his  chief  hope  upon  the  chances  of  his  being 
able  to  appropriate  the  benefit  of  this  disgust 
to  himself.  If  he  can,  by  much  drumming  and 
17 


Abraham  Lincoln 

repeating,  fasten  the  odium  of  that  idea  upon 
his  adversaries,  he  thinks  he  can  struggle 
through  the  storm.  He  therefore  clings  to  this 
hope,  as  a  drowning  man  to  the  last  plank.  He 
makes  an  occasion  for  lugging  it  in  from  the 
opposition  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  finds 
the  Republicans  insisting  that  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  includes  all  men,  black  as 
well  as  white,  and  forthwith  he  boldly  denies 
that  it  includes  negroes  at  all,  and  proceeds  to 
argue  gravely  that  all  who  contend  it  does,  do 
so  only  because  they  want  to  vote,  and  eat,  and 
sleep,  and  marry  with  negroes  !  He  will  have 
it  that  they  cannot  be  consistent  else.  Now  I 
protest  against  the  counterfeit  logic  which  con 
cludes  that,  because  I  do  not  want  a  black 
woman  for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her 
for  a  wife.  I  need  not  have  her  for  either.  I 
can  just  leave  her  alone.  In  some  respects  she 
certainly  is  not  my  equal  ;  but  in  her  natural 
right  to  eat  the  bread  she  earns  with  her  own 
hands  without  asking  leave  of  any  one  else,  she 
is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  all  others. 

Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinion  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case,  admits  that  the  language  of 
the  Declaration  is  broad  enough  to  include  the 
whole  human  family,  but  he  and  Judge  Douglas 
argue  that  the  authors  of  that  instrument  did 
not  intend  to  include  negroes,  by  the  fact  that 
they  did  not  at  once  actually  place  them  on  an 
equality  with  the  whites.  Now  this  grave  argu 
ment  comes  to  just  nothing  at  all,  by  the  other 
18 


Dred  Scott  Decision 

fact  that  they  did  not  at  once,  or  ever  after 
ward,  actually  place  all  white  people  on  an 
equality  with  one  another.  And  this  is  the 
staple  argument  of  both  the  chief  justice  and 
the  senator  for  doing  this  obvious  violence  to 
the  plain,  unmistakable  language  of  the  Decla 
ration. 

I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument 
intended  to  include  all  men,  but  they  did  not 
intend  to  declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects. 
They  did  not  mean  to  say  all  were  equal  in 
color,  size,  intellect,  moral  developments,  or 
social  capacity.  They  denned  with  tolerable 
distinctness  in  what  respects  they  did  consider 
all  men  created  equal — equal  with  "  certain  in 
alienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  This  they  said, 
and  this  they  meant.  They  did  not  mean  to 
assert  the  obvious  untruth  that  all  were  then 
actually  enjoying  that  equality,  nor  yet  that 
they  were  about  to  confer  it  immediately  upon 
them.  In  fact,  they  had  no  power  to  confer 
such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare 
the  right,  so  that  enforcement  of  it  might  fol 
low  as  fast  as  circumstances  should  permit. 

They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for 
free  society,  which  should  be  familiar  to  all, 
and  revered  by  all  ;  constantly  looked  to,  con 
stantly  labored  for,  and  even  though  never  per 
fectly  attained,  constantly  approximated,  and 
thereby  constantly  spreading  and  deepening  its 
influence  and  augmenting  the  happiness  and 
19 


Abraham  Lincoln 

value  of  life  to  all  people  of  all  colors  every 
where.  The  assertion  that  "  all  men  are  cre 
ated  equal"  was  of  no  practical  use  in  effecting 
our  separation  from  Great  Britain  ;  and  it  was 
placed  in  the  Declaration  not  for  that,  but  for 
future  use.  Its  authors  meant  it  to  be— as, 
thank  God,  it  is  now  proving  itself —a  stum 
bling-block  to  all  those  who  in  after-times  might 
seek  to  turn  a  free  people  back  into  the  hateful 
paths  of  despotism.  They  knew  the  proneness 
of  prosperity  to  breed  tyrants,  and  they  meant 
when  such  should  reappear  in  this  fair  land  and 
commence  their  vocation,  they  should  find  left 
for  them  at  least  one  hard  nut  to  crack. 

I  have  now  briefly  expressed  my  view  of  the 
meaning  and  object  of  that  part  of  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  which  declares  that  "  all 
men  are  created  equal." 

Now  let  us  hear  Judge  Douglas's  view  of  the 
same  subject,  as  I  find  it  in  the  printed  report 
of  his  late  speech.  Here  it  is  : 

"  No  man  can  vindicate  the  character,  mo 
tives,  and  conduct  of  the  signers  of  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  except  upon  the  hypoth 
esis  that  they  referred  to  the  white  race  alone, 
and  not  to  the  African,  when  they  declared  all 
men  to  have  been  created  equal  ;  that  they 
were  speaking  of  British  subjects  on  this  conti 
nent  being  equal  to  British  subjects  born  and 
residing  in  Great  Britain  ;  that  they  were  en 
titled  to  the  same  inalienable  rights,  and  among 
them  were  enumerated  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness.  The  Declaration  was 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  colo- 


Dred  Scott  Decision 

nists  in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world  in  with 
drawing  their  allegiance  from  the  British  crown, 
and  dissolving  their  connection  with  the  mother 
country." 

My  good  friends,  read  that  carefully  over 
some  leisure  hour,  and  ponder  well  upon  it  ; 
see  what  a  mere  wreck — mangled  ruin — it 
makes  of  our  once  glorious  Declaration. 

"  They  were  speaking  of  British  subjects  on 
this  continent  being  equal  to  British  subjects 
born  and  residing  in  Great  Britain  !"  Why, 
according  to  this,  not  only  negroes  but  white 
people  outside  of  Great  Britain  and  America 
were  not  spoken  of  in  that  instrument.  The 
English,  Irish,  and  Scotch,  along  with  white 
Americans,  were  included,  to  be  sure,  but  the 
French,  Germans,  and  other  white  people  of 
the  world  are  all  gone  to  pot  along  with  the 
judge's  inferior  races  ! 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  promised  some 
thing  better  than  the  condition  of  British  sub 
jects  ;  but  no,  it  only  meant  that  we  should  be 
equal  to  them  in  their  own  oppressed  and  un 
equal  condition.  According  to  that,  it  gave  no 
promise  that,  having  kicked  off  the  king  and 
lords  of  Great  Britain,  we  should  not  at  once 
be  saddled  with  a  king  and  lords  of  our  own. 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  contemplated 
the  progressive  improvement  in  the  condition 
of  all  men  everywhere  ;  but  no,  it  merely  "  was 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  colo 
nists  in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world  in  with- 

21 


Abraham  Lincoln 

drawing  their  allegiance  from  the  British  crown, 
and  dissolving  their  connection  with  the  mother 
country. ' '  Why,  that  object  having  been  effect 
ed  some  eighty  years  ago,  the  Declaration  is  of 
no  practical  use  now — mere  rubbish — old  wad 
ding  left  to  rot  on  the  battle-field  after  the  vic 
tory  is  won. 

I  understand  you  are  preparing  to  celebrate 
the  "Fourth,"  to-morrow  week.  What  for? 
The  doings  of  that  day  had  no  reference  to  the 
present ;  and  quite  half  of  you  are  not  even  de 
scendants  of  those  who  were  referred  to  at  that 
day.  But  I  suppose  you  will  celebrate,  and 
will  even  go  so  far  as  to  read  the  Declaration. 
Suppose,  after  you  read  it  once  in  the  old-fash 
ioned  way,  you  read  it  once  more  with  Judge 
Douglas's  version.  It  will  then  run  thus  : 
"  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that 
all  British  subjects  who  were  on  this  continent 
eighty-one  years  ago,  were  created  equal  to  all 
British  subjects  born  and  then  residing  in 
Great  Britain." 

And  now  I  appeal  to  all— to  Democrats  as 
well  as  others — are  you  really  willing  that  the 
Declaration  shall  thus  be  frittered  away  ? — thus 
left  no  more,  at  most,  than  an  interesting  me 
morial  of  the  dead  past? — thus  shorn  of  its 
vitality  and  practical  value,  and  left  without 
the  germ  or  even  the  suggestion  of  the  individ 
ual  rights  of  man  in  it  ? 


22 


Springfield  Speech 
June  16,  1858 

Speech  delivered  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  at  the 
close  of  the  Republican  State  Convention  by 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  named  as  their 
candidate  for  United  States  Senator. 

[The  opening  paragraph  of  this  speech  was 
prepared  with  the  most  extreme  care,  and  prob 
ably  did  more  to  influence  Lincoln's  political 
future  than  anything  he  ever  wrote.  His  best 
friends  thought  it  impolitic  to  utter  the  senti 
ment  that  the  ' '  government  cannot  endure  per 
manently  half  slave  and  half  free." 

For  the  immediate  purpose  of  that  campaign 
they  were  right,  for  this  paragraph,  in  the  opin 
ion  of  many  good  judges,  was  the  cause  of  Lin 
coln's  defeat  by  Douglas.  But  the  constant 
discussion  of  those  sentences  in  the  great  series 
of  joint  debates  with  Douglas  during  the  sum 
mer  and  autumn  brought  Lincoln's  views  be 
fore  the  whole  country,  and  was  an  important 
element  in  his  selection  as  the  Republican  can 
didate  for  the  Presidency  in  1860.  The  entire 
speech,  read  in  the  light  of  subsequent  history, 
affords  remarkable  evidence  not  only  of  Lin 
coln's  shrewdness  as  a  party  leader,  but  of  his 
political  wisdom  in  the  highest  sense.] 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Con 
vention  :  If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are, 
and  whither  we  are  tending,  we  could  better 
23 


Abraham  Lincoln 

judge  what  to  do,  and  how  to  do  it.  We  are 
now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was 
initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident 
promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation. 
Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agita 
tion  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease 
until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and 
passed.  "  A  house  divided  against  itself  can 
not  stand."  I  believe  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free. 
I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I 
do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall— but  I  do  expect 
it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all 
one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  oppo 
nents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread 
of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction  ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all 
the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition  ? 

Let  any  one  who  doubts  carefully  contem 
plate  that  now  almost  complete  legal  combina 
tion — piece  of  machinery,  so  to  speak — com 
pounded  of  the  Nebraska  doctrine  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Let  him  consider  not  only  what 
work  the  machinery  is  adapted  to  do,  and  how 
well  adapted  ;  but  also  let  him  study  the  his 
tory  of  its  construction,  and  trace,  if  he  can,  or 
rather  fail,  if  he  can,  to  trace  the  evidences  of 
24 


Springfield  Speech 

design  and  concert  of  action  among  its  chief 
architects,  from  the  beginning. 

The  new  year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded 
from  more  than  half  the  States  by  State  consti 
tutions,  and  from  most  of  the  national  territory 
by  congressional  prohibition.  Four  days  later 
commenced  the  struggle  which  ended  in  repeal 
ing  that  congressional  prohibition.  This 
opened  all  the  national  territory  to  slavery,  and 
was  the  first  point  gained. 

But,  so  far,  Congress  only  had  acted  ;  and 
an  indorsement  by  the  people,  real  or  apparent, 
was  indispensable  to  save  the  point  already 
gained  and  give  chance  for  more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked,  but 
had  been  provided  for,  as  well  as  might  be,  in 
the  notable  argument  of  "  squatter  sover 
eignty,"  otherwise  called  "  sacred  right  of  self- 
government,"  which  latter  phrase,  though  ex 
pressive  of  the  only  rightful  basis  of  any  gov 
ernment,  was  so  perverted  in  this  attempted 
use  of  it  as  to  amount  to  just  this  :  That  if  any 
one  man  choose  to  enslave  another,  no  third 
man  shall  be  allowed  to  object.  That  argument 
was  incorporated  into  the  Nebraska  bill  itself, 
in  the  language  which  follows  :  "  It  being  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legis 
late  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to 
exclude  it  therefrom  ;  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 
25 


Abraham  Lincoln 

Then  opened  the  roar  of  loose  declamation  in 
favor  of  "squatter  sovereignty"  and  "sacred 
right  of  self-government."  "  But,"  said  oppo 
sition  members,  "  let  us  amend  the  bill  so  as  to 
expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tory  may  exclude  slavery."  "  Not  we,"  said 
the  friends  of  the  measure  ;  and  down  they 
voted  the  amendment. 

While  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passing  through 
Congress,  a  law  case  involving  the  question  of 
a  negro's  freedom,  by  reason  of  his  owner  hav 
ing  voluntarily  taken  him  first  into  a  free  State 
and  then  into  a  Territory  covered  by  the  con 
gressional  prohibition,  and  held  him  as  a  slave 
for  a  long  time  in  each,  was  passing  through 
the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District 
of  Missouri  ;  and  both  Nebraska  bill  and  law 
suit  were  brought  to  a  decision  in  the  same 
month  of  May,  1854.  The  negro's  name  was 
Dred  Scott,  which  name  now  designates  the  de 
cision  finally  made  in  the  case.  Before  the 
then  next  presidential  election,  the  law  case 
came  to  and  was  argued  in  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  ;  but  the  decision  of  it 
was  deferred  until  after  the  election.  Still,  be 
fore  the  election,  Senator  Trumbull,  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  requested  the  leading  ad 
vocate  of  the  Nebraska  bill  to  state  his  opinion 
whether  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  constitu 
tionally  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  ;  and 
the  latter  answered  :  ' '  That  is  a  question  for 
the  Supreme  Court." 

26 


Springfield   Speech 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elect 
ed,  and  the  indorsement,  such  as  it  was,  se 
cured.  That  was  the  second  point  gained. 
The  indorsement,  however,  fell  short  of  a  clear 
popular  majority  by  nearly  four  hundred  thou 
sand  votes,  and  so,  perhaps,  was  not  over 
whelmingly  reliable  and  satisfactory.  The  out 
going  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  as 
impressively  as  possible  echoed  back  upon  the 
people  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  indorse 
ment.  The  Supreme  Court  met  again  ;  did  not 
announce  their  decision,  but  ordered  a  reargu- 
ment.  The  presidential  inauguration  came, 
and  still  no  decision  of  the  court  ;  but  the  in 
coming  President  in  his  inaugural  address  fer 
vently  exhorted  the  people  to  abide  by  the  forth 
coming  decision,  whatever  it  might  be.  Then, 
in  a  few  days,  came  the  decision. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill  finds 
an  early  occasion  to  make  a  speech  at  this  cap 
ital  indorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision;  and 
vehemently  denouncing  all  opposition  to  it. 
The  new  President,  too,  seizes  the  early  occa 
sion  of  the  Silliman  letter  to  indorse  and  strongly 
construe  that  decision,  and  to  express  his  aston 
ishment  that  any  different  view  had  ever  been 
entertained  ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the 
President  and  the  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
on  the  mere  question  of  fact,  whether  the 
Lecompton  constitution  was  or  was  not,  in  any 
just  sense,  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas  ;  and 
27 


Abraham   Lincoln 

in  that  quarrel  the  latter  declares  that  all  he 
wants  is  a  fair  vote  for  the  people,  and  that  he 
cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or 
voted  up.  I  do  not  understand  his  declaration 
that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted 
down  or  voted  up  to  be  intended  by  him  other 
than  as  an  apt  definition  of  the  policy  he  would 
impress  upon  the  public  mind — the  principle 
for  which  he  declares  he  has  suffered  so  much, 
and  is  ready  to  suffer  to  the  end.  And  well 
may  he  cling  to  that  principle.  If  he  has  any 
parental  feeling,  well  may  he  cling  to  it.  That 
principle  is  the  only  shred  left  of  his  original 
Nebraska  doctrine.  Under  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision  "squatter  sovereignty"  squatted  out  of 
existence,  tumbled  down  like  temporary  scaf 
folding,— like  the  mold  at  the  foundry,  served 
through  one  blast  and  fell  back  into  loose  sand, 
— helped  to  carry  an  election,  and  then  was 
kicked  to  the  winds.  His  late  joint  struggle 
with  the  Republicans  against  the  Lecompton 
constitution  involves  nothing  of  the  original 
Nebraska  doctrine.  That  struggle  was  made 
on  a  point — the  right  of  a  people  to  make  their 
own  constitution — upon  which  he  and  the  Re 
publicans  have  never  differed. 

The  several  points  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
in  connection  with  Senator  Douglas's  "care 
not"  policy,  constitute  the  piece  of  machinery 
in  its  present  state  of  advancement.  This  was 
the  third  point  gained.  The  working  points  of 
that  machinery  are  : 

28 


Springfield  Speech 

(1)  That  no  negro   slave,  imported  as   such 
from  Africa,  and  no  descendant  of  such  slave, 
can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any  State,  in  the  sense 
of  that  term  as  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.     This  point  is  made  in  order  to 
deprive  the  negro  in  every  possible  event  of  the 
benefit  of  that  provision  of  the  United  States 
Constitution  which  declares  that  "  the  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  priv 
ileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States." 

(2)  That,  "  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,"  neither  Congress  nor  a  terri 
torial  legislature  can  exclude  slavery  from  any 
United  States  Territory.     This  point  is  made 
in  order  that  individual  men  may  fill  up  the 
Territories  with  slaves,  without  danger  of  los 
ing  them  as  property,  and  thus  enhance  the 
chances    of    permanency     to    the     institution 
through  all  the  future. 

(3)  That  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  ac 
tual  slavery  in  a  free  State  makes  him  free  as 
against  the  holder,  the  United  States  courts 
will  not  decide,  but  will  leave  to  be  decided  by 
the  courts  of  any  slave  State  the  negro  may  be 
forced  into  by  the  master.     This  point  is  made 
not  to  be  pressed  immediately,  but,  if  acquiesced 
in  for  a  while  and  apparently  indorsed  by  the 
people  at  an  election,  then  to  sustain  the  logi 
cal  conclusion  that  what  Dred  Scott's  master 
might  lawfully  do  with  Dred  Scott  in  the  free 
State  of  Illinois,  every  other  master  may  law- 

29 


Abraham   Lincoln 

fully  do  with  any  other  one  or  one  thousand 
slaves  in  Illinois  or  in  any  other  free  State. 

Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in 
hand  with  it,  the  Nebraska  doctrine,  or  what  is 
left  of  it,  is  to  educate  and  mold  public  opin 
ion,  at  least  Northern  public  opinion,  not  to 
care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted 
up.  This  shows  exactly  where  we  now  are, 
and  partially,  also,  whither  we  are  tending. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter, 
to  go  back  and  run  the  mind  over  the  string  of 
historical  facts  already  stated.  Several  things 
will  now  appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than 
they  did  when  they  were  transpiring.  The 
people  were  to  be  left  "  perfectly  free,"  "  sub 
ject  only  to  the  Constitution."  What  the  Con 
stitution  had  to  do  with  it  outsiders  could  not 
then  see.  Plainly  enough  now,  it  was  an  ex 
actly  fitted  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  to 
afterward  come  in,  and  declare  the  perfect  free 
dom  of  the  people  to  be  just  no  freedom  at  all. 
Why  was  the  amendment  expressly  declaring 
the  right  of  the  people  voted  down  ?  Plainly 
enough  now,  the  adoption  of  it  would  have 
spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
Why  was  the  court  decision  held  up  ?  Why 
even  a  senator's  individual  opinion  withheld 
till  after  the  presidential  election  ?  Plainly 
enough  now,  the  speaking  out  then  would  have 
damaged  the  "perfectly  free"  argument  upon 
which  the  election  was  to  be  carried.  Why  the 
outgoing  President's  felicitation  on  the  indorse- 
30 


Springfield  Speech 

ment  ?  Why  the  delay  of  a  reargument  ? 
Why  the  incoming  President's  advance  exhor 
tation  in  favor  of  the  decision  ?  These  things 
look  like  the  cautious  patting  and  petting  of  a 
spirited  horse  preparatory  to  mounting  him, 
when  it  is  dreaded  that  he  may  give  the  rider  a 
fall.  And  why  the  hasty  after-indorsement  of 
the  decision  by  the  President  and  others  ? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  ex 
act  adaptations  are  the  result  of  preconcert. 
But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  differ 
ent  portions  of  which  we  know  have  been  got 
ten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by 
different  workmen, — Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger, 
and  James,  for  instance, — and  we  see  these  tim 
bers  joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make 
the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons 
and  mortises  exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths 
and  proportions  of  the  different  pieces  exactly 
adapted  to  their  respective  places,  and  not  a 
piece  too  many  or  too  few,  not  omitting  even 
scaffolding — or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we 
see  the  place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and 
prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in — in  such  a 
case  we  find  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that 
Stephen  and  Franklin  and  Roger  and  James  all 
understood  one  another  from  the  beginning, 
and  all  worked  upon  a  common  plan  or  draft 
drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  by  the  Ne 
braska  bill,  the  people  of  a  State  as  well  as  Ter 
ritory  were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "  sub- 


Abraham  Lincoln 

ject  only  to  the  Constitution. ' '  Why  mention 
a  State  ?  They  were  legislating  for  Territories, 
and  not  for  or  about  States.  Certainly  the  peo 
ple  of  a  State  are  and  ought  to  be  subject  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  but  why 
is  mention  of  this  lugged  into  this  merely  terri 
torial  law  ?  Why  are  the  people  of  a  Territory 
and  the  people  of  a  State  therein  lumped  to 
gether,  and  their  relation  to  the  Constitution 
therein  treated  as  being  precisely  the  same  ? 
While  the  opinion  of  the  court,  by  Chief  Justice 
Taney,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  separate 
opinions  of  all  the  concurring  judges,  expressly 
declare  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  neither  permits  Congress  nor  a  terri 
torial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery  from  any 
United  States  Territory,  they  all  omit  to  de 
clare  whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution  per 
mits  a  State,  or  the  people  of  a  State,  to  exclude 
it.  Possibly,  this  is  a  mere  omission  ;  but  who 
can  be  quite  sure,  if  McLean  or  Curtis  had 
sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a  declaration  of 
unlimited  power  in  the  people  of  a  State  to  ex 
clude  slavery  from  their  limits,  just  as  Chase 
and  Mace  sought  to  get  such  declaration,  in 
behalf  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  into  the 
Nebraska  bill — I  ask,  who  can  be  quite  sure 
that  it  would  not  have  been  voted  down  in  the 
one  case  as  it  had  been  in  the  other?  The 
nearest  approach  to  the  point  of  declaring  the 
power  of  a  State  over  slavery  is  made  by  Judge 
Nelson.  He  approaches  it  more  than  once, 
32 


Springfield  Speech 

using  the  precise  idea,  and  almost  the  language 
too,  of  the  Nebraska  act.  On  one  occasion  his 
exact  language  is  :  "  Except  in  cases  where 
the  power  is  restrained  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  the  law  of  the  State  is  su 
preme  over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its 
jurisdiction."  In  what  cases  the  power  of  the 
States  is  so  restrained  by  the  United  States 
Constitution  is  left  an  open  question,  precisely 
as  the  same  question  as  to  the  restraint  on  the 
power  of  the  Territories  was  left  open  in  the 
Nebraska  act.  Put  this  and  that  together,  and 
we  have  another  nice  little  niche,  which  we 
may,  ere  long,  see  filled  with  another  Supreme 
Court  decision  declaring  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  does  not  permit  a  State  to 
exclude  slavery  from  its  limits.  And  this  may 
especially  be  expected  if  the  doctrine  of  "  care 
not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted 
up"  shall  gain  upon  the  public  mind  sufficiently 
to  give  promise  that  such  a  decision  can  be 
maintained  when  made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  now  lacks 
of  being  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States.  Wel 
come,  or  unwelcome,  such  decision  is  probably 
coming,  and  will  soon  be  upon  us,  unless  the 
power  of  the  present  political  dynasty  shall  be 
met  and  overthrown.  We  shall  lie  down  pleas 
antly  dreaming  that  the  people  of  Missouri  are 
on  the  verge  of  making  their  State  free,  and 
we  shall  awake  to  the  reality  instead  that  the 
Supreme  Court  has  made  Illinois  a  slave  State. 
33 


Abraham  Lincoln 

To  meet  and  overthrow  the  power  of  that 
dynasty  is  the  work  now  before  all  those  who 
would  prevent  that  consummation.  That  is 
what  we  have  to  do.  How  can  we  best  do  it  ? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to 
their  own  friends,  and  yet  whisper  us  softly 
that  Senator  Douglas  is  the  aptest  instrument 
there  is  with  which  to  effect  that  object.  They 
wish  us  to  infer  all  from  the  fact  that  he  now 
has  a  little  quarrel  with  the  present  head  of  the 
dynasty  ;  and  that  he  has  regularly  voted  with 
us  on  a  single  point  upon  which  he  and  we  have 
never  differed.  They  remind  us  that  he  is  a 
great  man,  and  that  the  largest  of  us  are  very 
small  ones.  Let  this  be  granted.  But  "  a  liv 
ing  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion."  Judge 
Douglas,  if  not  a  dead  lion  for  this  work,  is  at 
least  a  caged  and  toothless  one.  How  can  he 
oppose  the  advances  of  slavery  ?  He  don't  care 
anything  about  it.  His  avowed  mission  is  im 
pressing  the  "public  heart"  to  care  nothing 
about  it.  A  leading  Douglas  Democratic  news 
paper  thinks  Douglas's  superior  talent  will  be 
needed  to  resist  the  revival  of  the  African 
slave-trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an  effort  to 
revive  that  trade  is  approaching  ?  He  has  not 
said  so.  Does  he  really  think  so  ?  But  if  it  is, 
how  can  he  resist  it  ?  For  years  he  has  labored 
to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of  white  men  to  take 
negro  slaves  into  the  new  Territories.  Can  he 
possibly  show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right  to 
buy  them  where  they  can  be  bought  cheapest  ? 
34 


Springfield  Speech 

And  unquestionably  they  can  be  bought  cheaper 
in  Africa  than  in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all  in 
his  power  to  reduce  the  whole  question  of 
slavery  to  one  of  a  mere  right  of  property  ;  and 
as  such,  how  can  he  oppose  the  foreign  slave- 
trade  ?  How  can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that 
"property"  shall  be  "perfectly  free,"  unless 
he  does  it  as  a  protection  to  the  home  produc 
tion  ?  And  as  the  home  producers  will  probably 
not  ask  the  protection,  he  will  be  wholly  with 
out  a  ground  of  opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man 
may  rightfully  be  wiser  to-day  than  he  was  yes 
terday—that  he  may  rightfully  change  when  he 
finds  himself  wrong.  But  can  we,  for  that  rea 
son,  run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he  will  make  any 
particular  change  of  which  he,  himself,  has- 
given  no  intimation  ?  Can  we  safely  base  our 
action  upon  any  such  vague  inference  ?  Now, 
as  ever,  I  wish  not  to  misrepresent  Judge 
Douglas's  position,  question  his  motives,  or  do 
aught  that  can  be  personally  offensive  to  him. 
Whenever,  if  ever,  he  and  we  can  come  to 
gether  on  principle  so  that  our  great  cause  may 
have  assistance  from  his  great  ability,  I  hope  to 
have  interposed  no  adventitious  obstacle.  But 
clearly,  he  is  not  now  with  us — he  does  not  pre 
tend  to  be — he  does  not  promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and 

conducted  by,  its  own  undoubted  friends — those 

whose  hands  are  free,  whose  hearts  are  in  the 

work,  who  do  care  for  the  result.     Two  years 

35 


Abraham  Lincoln 

ago  the  Republicans  of  the  nation  mustered 
over  thirteen  hundred  thousand  strong.  We 
did  this  under  the  single  impulse  of  resistance 
to  a  common  danger,  with  every  external  cir 
cumstance  against  us.  Of  strange,  discordant, 
and  even  hostile  elements,  we  gathered  from 
the  four  winds,  and  formed  and  fought  the  bat 
tle  through,  under  the  constant  hot  fire  of  a  dis 
ciplined,  proud,  and  pampered  enemy.  Did 
we  brave  all  then  to  falter  now  ? — now,  when 
that  same  enemy  is  wavering,  dissevered,  and 
belligerent  ?  The  result  is  not  doubtful.  We 
shall  not  fail — if  we  stand  firm,  we  shall  not 
fail.  Wise  counsels  may  accelerate  or  mistakes 
delay  it,  but,  sooner  or  later,  the  victory  is  sure 
to  come. 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 
February  27,  1860 

[This  was  Lincoln's  first  appearance  before 
an  Eastern  audience.  The  speech  cost  him  a 
great  deal  of  labor,  and  was  most  heartily  re 
ceived. — See  Morse's  "  Abraham  Lincoln,"  I., 
153-156.] 

Mr.  President  and  Fellow-citizens  of  New 
York  :  The  facts  with  which  I  shall  deal  this 
evening  are  mainly  old  and  familiar  ;  nor  is 
there  anything  new  in  the  general  use  I  shall 
make  of  them.  If  there  shall  be  any  novelty, 
it  will  be  in  the  mode  of  presenting  the  facts, 
and  the  inferences  and  observations  following 
that  presentation.  In  his  speech  last  autumn 
at  Columbus,  Ohio,  as  reported  in  the  New 
York  Times,  Senator  Douglas  said  : 

'-  "  Our  fathers,  when  they  framed  the  govern 
ment  under  which  we  live,  understood  this 
question  just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we 
do  now." 

I  fully  indorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a  text 
for  this  discourse.  I  so  adopt  it  because  it  fur 
nishes  a  precise  and  an  agreed  starting-point 
for  a  discussion  between  Republicans  and  that 
wing  of  the  Democracy  headed  by  Senator 
37 


Abraham  Lincoln 

Douglas.  It  simply  leaves  the  inquiry  :  What 
was  the  understanding  those  fathers  had  of  the 
question  mentioned  ? 

What  is  the  frame  of  government  under  which 
we  live  ?  The  answer  must  be,  ' '  The  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States. ' '  That  Constitution 
consists  of  the  original,  framed  in  1787,  and 
under  which  the  present  government  first  went 
into  operation,  and  twelve  subsequently  framed 
amendments,  the  first  ten  of  which  were  framed 
in  1789. 

Who  were  our  fathers  that  framed  the  Con 
stitution  ?  I  suppose  the  "thirty-nine"  who 
signed  the  original  instrument  may  be  fairly 
called  our  fathers  who  framed  that  part  of  the 
present  government.  It  is  almost  exactly  true 
to  say  they  framed  it,  and  it  is  altogether  true 
to  say /they  fairly  represented  the  opinion  and 
sentiment  of  the  whole  nation  at  that  time.  I 
Their  names,  being  familiar  to  nearly  all,  aria 
accessible  to  quite  all,  need  not  now  be  re 
peated. 

I  take  these  "thirty-nine,"  for  the  present, 
as  being  "  our  fathers  who  framed  the  govern 
ment  under  which  we  live."  What  is  the  ques 
tion  which,  according  to  the  text,  those  fathers 
understood  "  just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than 
we  do  now"  ? 

It  is  this  :  Does  the  proper  division  of  local 
from  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Con 
stitution,   forbid  our   Federal   Government   to 
control  as  to  slavery  in  our  Federal  Territories  ? 
33 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

Upon  this,  Senator  Douglas  holds  the  affirma 
tive,  and  Republicans  the  negative.  This 
affirmation  and  denial  form  an  issue  ;  and  this 
issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text 
declares  our  fathers  understood  ' '  better  than 
we."  Let  us  now  inquire  whether  the  "  thirty- 
nine,"  or  any  of  them,  ever  acted  upon  this 
question  ;  and  if  they  did,  how  they  acted  upon 
it— how  they  expressed  that  better  understand 
ing.  In  1784,  three  years  before  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  United  States  then  owning  the  North 
western  Territory,  and  no  other,  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  had  before  them  the  ques 
tion  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  that  Territory  ; 
and  four  of  the  "  thirty-nine"  who  afterward 
framed  the  Constitution  were  in  that  Congress, 
and  voted  on  that  question.  Of  these,  Roger 
Sherman,  Thomas  Mifflin,  and  Hugh  William 
son  voted  for  the  prohibition,  thus  showing 
that,  in  their  understanding,  no  line  dividing 
local  from  Federal  authority,  nor  anything  else, 
properly  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to 
control  as  to  slavery  in  Federal  territory.  The 
other  of  the  four,  James  McHenry,  voted  against 
the  prohibition,  showing  that  for  some  cause 
he  thought  it  improper  to  vote  for  it. 

In  1787,  still  before  the  Constitution,  but 
while  the  convention  was  in  session  framing  it, 
and  while  the  Northwestern  Territory  still  was 
the  only  Territory  owned  by  the  United  States, 
the  same  question  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  the 
Territory  again  came  before  the  Congress  of 
39 


Abraham  Lincoln 

the  Confederation  ;  and  two  more  of  the 
"  thirty-nine"  who  afterward  signed  the  Con 
stitution  were  in  that  Congress,  and  voted  on  the 
question.  They  were  William  Blount  and  Wil 
liam  Few  ;  and  they  both  voted  for  the  pro 
hibition—thus  showing  that  in  their  under 
standing  no  line  dividing  local  from  Federal 
authority,  nor  anything  else,  properly  forbade 
the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery 
in  Federal  territory.  This  time  the  prohibition 
became  a  law,  being  part  of  what  is  now  well 
known  as  the  ordinance  of  '87. 

The  question  of  Federal  control  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories  seems  not  to  have  been  directly 
before  the  convention  which  framed  the  orig 
inal  Constitution  ;  and  hence  it  is  not  recorded 
that  the  "thirty-nine,"  or  any  of  them,  while 
engaged  on  that  instrument,  expressed  any 
opinion  on  that  precise  question. 

In  1789,  by  the  first  Congress  which  sat  under 
the  Constitution,  an  act  was  passed  to  enforce 
the  ordinance  of  '87,  including  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  Northwestern  Territory.  The 
bill  for  this  act  was  reported  by  one  of  the 
"  thirty-nine" — Thomas  Fitzsimmons,  then  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from 
Pennsylvania.  It  went  through  all  its  stages 
without  a  word  of  opposition,  and  finally  passed 
both  branches  without  ayes  and  nays,  which  is 
equivalent  to  a  unanimous  passage.  In  this 
Congress  there  were  sixteen  of  the  thirty-nine 
fathers  who  framed  the  original  Constitution. 
40 


Address  at  Cooper   Institute 

They  were  John  Langdon,  Nicholas  Oilman, 
Wm.  S.  Johnson,  Roger  Sherman,  Robert  Mor 
ris,  Trios.  Fitzsimmons,  William  Few,  Abraham 
Baldwin,  Rufus  King,  William  Paterson,  George 
Clymer,  Richard  Bassett,  George  Read,  Pierce 
Butler,  Daniel  Carroll,  and  James  Madison. 

This  shows  that,  in  their  understanding,  no 
line  dividing  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor 
anything  in  the  Constitution,  properly  forbade 
Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Federal  ter 
ritory  ;  else  both  their  fidelity  to  correct  princi 
ple,  and  their  oath  to  support  the  Constitution, 
would  have  constrained  them  to  oppose  the 
prohibition. 

Again,  George  Washington,  another  of  the 
"thirty-nine,"  was  then  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  as  such  approved  and  signed 
the  bill,  thus  completing  its  validity  as  a  law, 
and  thus  showing  that,  in  his  understanding, 
no  line  dividing  local  from  Federal  authority, 
nor  anything  in  the  Constitution,  forbade  the 
Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in 
Federal  territory. 

No  great  while  after  the  adoption  of  the  orig 
inal  Constitution,  North  Carolina  ceded  to  the 
Federal  Government  the  country  now  consti 
tuting  the  State  of  Tennessee  ;  and  a  few  years 
later  Georgia  ceded  that  which  now  constitutes 
the  States  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama.  In 
both  deeds  of  cession  it  was  made  a  condition 
by  the  ceding  States  that  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  should  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  ceded 


Abraham   Lincoln 

country.  Besides  this,  slavery  was  then  ac 
tually  in  the  ceded  country.  Under  these  cir 
cumstances,  Congress,  on  taking  charge  of 
these  countries,  did  not  absolutely  prohibit 
slavery  within  them.  ^But  they  did  interfere 
with  it — take  control  of  it — even  there,  to  a  cer 
tain  extent.__7ln  1798  Congress  organized  the 
Territory  of  Mississippi.  In  the  act  of  organi 
zation  they  prohibited  the  bringing  of  slaves 
into  the  Territory  from  any  place  without  the 
United  States,  by  fine,  and  giving  freedom  to 
slaves  so  brought.  This  act  passed  both 
branches  of  Congress  without  yeas  and  nays. 
In  that  Congress  were  three  of  the  "thirty- 
nine"  who  framed  the  original  Constitution. 
They  were  John  Langdon,  George  Read,  and 
Abraham  Baldwin.  They  all  probably  voted 
for  it.  Certainly  they  would  have  placed  their 
opposition  to  it  upon  record  if,  in  their  under 
standing,  any  line  dividing  local  from  Federal 
authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution,  prop 
erly  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control 
as  to  slavery  in  Federal  territory. 

In  1803  the  Federal  Government  purchased 
the  Louisiana  country.  Our  former  territorial 
acquisitions  came  from  certain  of  our  own 
States  ;  but  this  Louisiana  country  was  ac 
quired  from  a  foreign  nation.  In  1804  Con 
gress  gave  a  territorial  organization  to  that  part 
of  it  which  now  constitutes  the  State  of  Louisi 
ana.  New  Orleans,  lying  within  that  part, 
was  an  old  and  comparatively  large  city. 
42 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

There  were  other  considerable  towns  and  settle 
ments,  and  slavery  was  extensively  and  thor 
oughly  intermingled  with  the  people.  ^Congress 
did  not,  in  the  Territorial  Act,  prohibit  slavery  ; 
but  they  did  interfere  with  it — take  control  of 
it — in  a  more  marked  and  extensive  way  than 
they  did  in  the  case  of  Mississippi/^  The  sub 
stance  of  the  provision  therein  made  in  relation 
to  slaves  was  : 

ist.  That  no  slave  should  be  imported  into 
the  Territory  from  foreign  parts. 

2d.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it 
who  had  been  imported  into  the  United  States 
since  the  first  day  of  May,  1798. 

3d.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it, 
except  by  the  owner,  and  for  his  own  use  as  a 
settler  ;  the  penalty  in  all  the  cases  being  a  fine 
upon  the  violator  of  the  law,  and  freedom  to 
the  slave. 

This  act  also  was  passed  without  ayes  or 
nays.  In  the  Congress  which  passed  it  there 
were  two  of  the  "thirty-nine."  They  were 
Abraham  Baldwin  and  Jonathan  Dayton.  As 
stated  in  the  case  of  Mississippi,  it  is  probable 
they  both  voted  for  it.  They  would  not  have 
allowed  it  to  pass  without  recording  their  op 
position  to  it  if,  in  their  understanding,  it  vio 
lated  either  the  line  properly  dividing  local  from 
Federal  authority,  or  any  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

In  1819-20  came  and  passed  the  Missouri 
question.  Many  votes  were  taken,  by  yeas  and 
43 


Abraham   Lincoln 

nays,  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  upon  the 
various  phases  of  the  general  question.  Two 
of  the  "  thirty-nine" — Rufus  King  and  Charles 
Pinckney — were  members  of  that  Congress. 
Mr.  King  steadily  voted  for  slavery  prohibition 
and  against  all  compromises,  while  Mr.  Pinck 
ney  as  steadily  voted  against  slavery  prohibition 
and  against  all  compromises.  By  this,  Mr. 
King  showed  that,  in  his  understanding,  no 
line  dividing  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor 
anything  in  the  Constitution,  was  violated  by 
Congress  prohibiting  slavery  in  Federal  terri 
tory  ;  while  Mr.  Pinckney,  by  his  votes,  showed 
that,  in  his  understanding,  there  was  some 
sufficient  reason  for  opposing  such  prohibition 
in  that  case. 

The  cases  I  have  mentioned  are  the  only  acts 
of  the  ' '  thirty-nine,' '  or  of  any  of  them,  upon  the 
direct  issue,  which  I  have  been  able  to  discover. 

To  enumerate  the  persons  who  thus  acted  as 
being  four  in  1784,  two  in  1787,  seventeen  in 
1789,  three  in  1798,  two  in  1804,  and  two  in 
1819-20,  there  would  be  thirty  of  them.  But 
this  would  be  counting  John  Langdon,  Roger 
Sherman,  William  Few,  Rufus  King,  and 
George  Read  each  twice,  and  Abraham  Bald 
win  three  times.  The  true  number  of  those  of 
the  "  thirty-nine"  whom  I  have  shown  to  have 
acted  upon  the  question  which,  by  the  text, 
they  understood  better  than  we,  is  twenty-three, 
leaving  sixteen  not  shown  to  have  acted  upon 
it  in  any  way. 

44 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

Here,  then,  we  have  twenty- three  out  of  our 
thirty-nine  fathers  "  who  framed  the  govern 
ment  under  which  we  live,"  who  have,  upon 
their  official  responsibility  and  their  corporal 
oaths,  acted  upon  the  very  question  which  the 
text  affirms  they  "  understood  just  as  well,  and 
even  better,  than  we  do  now  ;"  and  twenty- 
one  of  them — a  clear  majority  of  the  whole 
4 '  thirty-nine" — so  acting  upon  it  as  to  make 
them  guilty  of  gross  political  impropriety  and 
wilful  perjury  if,  in  their  understanding,  any 
proper  division  between  local  and  Federal  au 
thority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution  they 
had  made  themselves,  and  sworn  to  support, 
forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as 
to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territories.  Thus  the 
twenty-one  acted  ;  and,  as  actions  speak  louder 
than  words,  so  actions  under  such  responsibility 
speak  still  louder. 

Two  of  the  twenty-three  voted  against  con 
gressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Federal 
Territories,  in  the  instances  in  which  they  acted 
upon  the  question.  But  for  what  reasons  they 
so  voted  is  not  known.  They  may  have  done 
so  because  they  thought  a  proper  division  of 
local  from  Federal  authority,  or  some  provision 
or  principle  of  the  Constitution,  stood  in  the 
way  ;  or  they  may,  without  any  such  question, 
have  voted  against  the  prohibition  on  what  ap 
peared  to  the.m  to  be  sufficient  grounds  of  ex 
pediency.  /  £Jo  one  who  has  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution  can  conscientiously  vote  for 
45 


Abraham  Lincoln 

what  he  understands  to  be  an  unconstitutional 
measure,  however  expedient  he  may  think  it  ; 
but  one  may  and  ought  to  vote  against  a  meas 
ure  which  he  deems  constitutional  if,  at  the 
same  time,  he  deems  it  inexpedient!!  It,  there 
fore,  would  be  unsafe  to  set  down  even  the  two 
who  voted  against  the  prohibition  as  having 
done  so  because,  in  their  understanding,  any 
proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  authority, 
or  anything  in  the  Constitution,  forbade  the 
Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in 
Federal  territory. 

The  remaining  sixteen  of  the  "  thirty-nine," 
so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  have  left  no  record 
of  their  understanding  upon  the  direct  question 
of  Federal  control  of  slavery  in  the  Federal 
Territories.  But  there  is  much  reason  to  be 
lieve  that  their  understanding  upon  that  ques 
tion  would  not  have  appeared  different  from 
that  of  their  twenty-three  compeers,  had  it  been 
manifested  at  all. 

For  the  purpose  of  adhering  rigidly  to  the 
text,  I  have  purposely  omijtted  whatever  under 
standing  may  have  been  manifested  by  any 
person,  however  distinguished,  other  than  the 
thirty-nine  fathers  who  framed  the  original 
Constitution  ;  and,  for  the  same  reason,  I  have 
also  omitted  whatever  understanding  may  have 
been  manifested  by  any  of  the  "thirty-nine" 
even  on  any  other  phase  of  the  general  question 
of  slavery.  If  we  should  look  into  their  acts 
and  declarations  on  those  other  phases,  as  the 
46 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

foreign  slave-trade,  and  the  morality  and  policy 
of  slavery  generally,  it  would  appear  to  us  that 
on  the  direct  question  of  Federal  control  of 
slavery  in  Federal  Territories,  the  sixteen,  if 
they  had  acted  at  all,  would  probably  have  acted 
just  as  the  twenty-three  did.  Among  that  six 
teen  were  several  of  the  most  noted  anti-slavery, 
men  of  those  times— as  Dr.  Franklin,  Alexan 
der  Hamilton,  and  Gouverneur  Morris— while 
there  was  not  one  now  known  to  have  been 
otherwise,  unless  it  may  be  John  Rutledge,  cf 
South  Carolina. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  is  that  of  our  thirty- 
nine  fathers  who  framed  the  original  Constitu 
tion,  twenty-one — a  clear  majority  of  the  whole 
— ^certainly  understood  that  no  proper  division 
of  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor  any  part  of 
the  Constitution,  forbade  the  Federal  Govern- 
mentjx)  control  slavery  in  the  Federal  Terri 
tories/  while  all  the  rest  had  probably  the  same 
understanding.  Such,  unquestionably,  was  the 
understanding  of  our  fathers  who  framed  the 
original  Constitution  ;  and  the  text  affirms  that 
they  understood  the  question  "  better  than  we." 

But,  so  far,  I  have  been  considering  the  un 
derstanding  of  the  question  manifested  by  the 
framers  of  the  original  Constitution.  In  and 
by  the  original  instrument,  a  mode  was  pro 
vided  for  amending  it  ;  and,  as  I  have  already 
stated,  the  present  frame  of  "  the  government 
under  which  we  live"  consists  of  that  original, 
and  twelve  amendatory  articles  framed  and 
47 


Abraham   Lincoln 

adopted  since.  Those  who  now  insist  that  Fed 
eral  control  of  slavery  in  Federal  Territories 
violates  the  Constitution,  point  us  to  the  pro 
visions  which  they  suppose  it  thus  violates  ; 
and,  as  I  understand,  they  all  fix  upon  pro 
visions  in  these  amendatory  articles,  and  not  in 
the  original  instrument.  The  Supreme  Court, 
in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  plant  themselves  upon 
the  fifth  amendment,  which  provides  that  no 
person  shall  be  deprived  of  "  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law  ;"  while 
Senator  Douglas  and  his  peculiar  adherents 
plant  themselves  upon  the  tenth  amendment, 
providing  that  ' '  the  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States  by  the  Constitution"  "are 
reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people." 

Now  it  so  happens  that  these  amendments 
were  framed  by  the  first  Congress  which  sat 
under  the  Constitution — the  identical  Congress 
which  passed  the  act,  already  mentioned,  en 
forcing  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  North 
western  Territory.  Not  only  was  it  the  same 
Congress,  but  they  were  the  identical,  same  in 
dividual  men  who,  at  the  same  session,  and  at 
the  same  time  within  the  session,  had  under 
consideration,  and  in  progress  toward  matu 
rity,  these  constitutional  amendments,  and  this 
act  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  the  territory  the 
nation  then  owned.  The  constitutional  amend 
ments  were  introduced  before,  and  passed  after, 
the  act  enforcing  the  ordinance  of  '87  ;  so  that, 
48 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

during  the  whole  pendency  of  the  act  to  enforce 
the  ordinance,  the  constitutional  amendments 
were  also  pending. 

The  seventy-six  members  of  that  Congress, 
including  sixteen  of  the  framers  of  the  original 
Constitution,  as  before  stated,  were  pre-emi 
nently  our  fathers  who  framed  that  part  of 
"  the  government  under  which  we  live"  which 
is  now  claimed  as  forbidding  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  to  control  slavery  in  the  Federal  Ter 
ritories. 

Is  it  not  a  little  presumptuous  in  any  one  at 
this  day  to  affirm  that  the  two  things  which 
that  Congress  deliberately  framed,  and  carried 
to  maturity  at  the  same  time,  are  absolutely  in 
consistent  with  each  other  ?  And  does  not  such 
affirmation  become  impudently  absurd  when 
coupled  with  the  other  affirmation,  from  the 
same  mouth,  that  those  who  did  the  two  things 
alleged  to  be  inconsistent,  understood  whether 
they  really  were  inconsistent  better  than  we — 
better  than  he  who  affirms  that  they  are  incon 
sistent  ? 

It  is  surely  safe  to  assume  that  the  thirty-nine 
framers  of  the  original  Constitution,  and  the 
seventy-six  members  of  the  Congress  which 
framed  the  amendments  thereto,  taken  to 
gether,  do  certainly  include  those  who  may  be 
fairly  called  ' '  our  fathers  who  framed  the  gov 
ernment  under  which  we  live. ' '  And  so  assum 
ing,  I  defy  any  man  to  show  that  any  one  of 
them  ever,  in  his  whole  life,  declared  that,  in 
49 


Abraham   Lincoln 

his  understanding,  any  proper  division  of  local 
from  Federal  authority,  or  any  part  of  the  Con 
stitution,  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to 
control  as  to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territories. 
I  go  a  step  further.  1  defy  any  one  to  show 
that  any  living  man  in  the  whole  world  ever 
did,  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  present  cen 
tury  (and  I  might  almost  say  prior  to  the  be 
ginning  of  the  last  half  of  the  present  century), 
declare  that,  in  his  understanding,  any  proper 
division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  any 
part  of  the  Constitution,  forbade  the  Federal 
Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  Fed 
eral  Territories.  To  those  who  now  so  declare 
I  give  not  only  ''  our  fathers  who  framed  the 
government  under  which  we  live,"  but  with 
them  all  other  living  men  within  the  century  in 
which  it  was  framed,  among  whom  to  search, 
and  they  shall  not  be  able  to  find  the  evidence 
of  a  single  man  agreeing  with  them. 

Now,  and  here,  let  me  guard  a  little  against 
being  misunderstood.  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
we  are  bound  to  follow  implicitly  in  whatever 
our  fathers  did.  To  do  so  would  be  to  discard 
all  the  lights  of  current  experience — to  reject 
all  progress,  all  improvement.  What  I  do  say 
is  that  if  we  would  supplant  the  opinions  and 
policy  of  our  fathers  in  any  case,  we  should  do 
so  upon  evidence  so  conclusive,  and  argument 
so  clear,  that  even  their  great  authority,  fairly 
considered  and  weighed,  cannot  stand  ;  and 
most  surely  not  in  a  case  whereof  we  ourselves 
50 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

declare  they  understood  the  question  better 
than  we. 

If  any  man  at  this  day  sincerely  believes  that 
a  proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  author 
ity,  or  any  part  of  the  Constitution,  forbids  the 
Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in 
the  Federal  Territories,  he  is  right  to  say  so, 
and  to  enforce  his  position  by  all  truthful  evi 
dence  and  fair  argument  which  he  can.  But 
he  has  no  right  to  mislead  others,  who  have  less 
access  to  history,  and  less  leisure  to  study  it, 
into  the  false  belief  that  "  our  fathers  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live" 
were  of  the  same  opinion — thus  substituting 
falsehood  and  deception  for  truthful  evidence 
and  fair  argument.  If  any  man  at  this  day  sin 
cerely  believes  "  our  fathers  who  framed  the 
government  under  which  we  live"  used  and 
applied  principles,  in  other  cases,  which  ought 
to  have  led  them  to  understand  that  a  proper 
division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or 
some  part  of  the  Constitution,  forbids  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the 
Federal  Territories,  he  is  right  to  say  so.  But 
he  should,  at  the  same  time,  brave  the  responsi 
bility  of  declaring  that,  in  his  opinion,  he  un 
derstands  their  principles  better  than  they  did 
themselves  ;  and  especially  should  he  not  shirk 
that  responsibility  by  asserting  that  they  "  un 
derstood  the  question  just  as  well,  and  even 
better,  than  we  do  now." 

But  enough  !  Let  all  who  believe  that  "  our 
51 


Abraham  Lincoln 

fathers  who  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live  understood  this  question  just  as 
well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now,"  speak 
as  they  spoke,  and  act  as  they  acted  upon  it. 
This  is  all  Republicans  ask— all  Republicans 
desire — in  relation  to  slavery.  As  those  fathers 
marked  it,  so  let  it  be  again  marked,  as  an  evil 
not  to  be  extended,  but  to  be  tolerated  and  pro 
tected  only  because  of  and  so  far  as  its  actual 
presence  among  us  makes  that  toleration  and 
protection  a  necessity.  Let  all  the  guaranties 
those  fathers  gave  it  be  not  grudgingly,  but 
fully  and  fairly,  maintained.  For  this  Repub 
licans  contend,  and  with  this,  so  far  as  I  know 
or  believe,  they  will  be  content. 

And  now,  if  they  would  listen — as  I  suppose 
they  will  not — I  would  address  a  few  words  to 
the  Southern  people. 

I  would  say  to  them  :  You  consider  yourselves 
a  reasonable  and  a  just  people  ;  and  I  consider 
that  in  the  general  qualities  of  reason  and  jus 
tice  you  are  not  inferior  to  any  other  people. 
Still,  when  you  speak  of  us  Republicans,  you 
do  so  only  to  denounce  us  as  reptiles,  or,  at  the 
best,  as  no  better  than  outlaws.  You  will  grant 
a  hearing  to  pirates  or  murderers,  but  nothing 
like  it  to  "  Black  Republicans."  In  all  your 
contentions  with  one  another,  each  of  you  deems 
an  unconditional  condemnation  of  "  Black  Re 
publicanism"  as  the  first  thing  to  be  attended 
to.  Indeed,  such  condemnation  of  us  seems  to 
be  an  indispensable  prerequisite — license,  so  to 
52 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

speak — among  you  to  be  admitted  or  permitted 
to  speak  at  all.  Now  can  you  or  not  be  pre 
vailed  upon  to  pause  and  to  consider  whether 
this  is  quite  just  to  us,  or  even  to  yourselves  ? 
'Bring  forward  your  charges  and  specifications, 
and  then  be  patient  long  enough  to  hear  us 
deny  or  justify. 

You  say  we  are  sectional.  We  deny  it.  That 
makes  an  issue  ;  and  the  burden  of  proof  is 
upon  you.  You  produce  your  proof  ;  and  what 
is  it  ?  Why,  that  our  party  has  no  existence  in 
your  section— gets  no  votes  in  your  section. 
The  fact  is  substantially  true  ;  but  does  it  prove 
the  issue  ?  If  it  does,  then  in  case  we  should, 
without  change  of  principle,  begin  to  get  votes 
in  your  section,  we  should  thereby  cease  to  be 
sectional.  You  cannot  escape  this  conclusion  ; 
and  yet,  are  you  willing  to  abide  by  it  ?  If  you 
are,  you  will  probably  soon  find  that  we  have 
ceased  to  be  sectional,  for  we  shall  get  votes  in 
your  section  this  very  year.  You  will  then  be 
gin  to  discover,  as  the  truth  plainly  is,  that 
your  proof  does  not  touch  the  issue.  The  fact 
that  we  get  no  votes  in  your  section  is  a  fact  of 
your  making,  and  not  of  ours.  And  if  there  be 
fault  in  that  fact,  that  fault  is  primarily  yours, 
and  remains  so  until  you  show  that  we  repel 
you  by  some  wrong  principle  or  practice.  If 
we  do  repel  you  by  any  wrong  principle  or  prac 
tice,  the  fault  is  ours  ;  but  this  brings  you  to 
where  you  ought  to  have  started — to  a  discus 
sion  of  the  right  or  wrong  of  our  principle.  If 
53 


Abraham  Lincoln 

our  principle,  put  in  practice,  would  wrong  your 
section  for  the  benefit  of  ours,  or  for  any  other 
object,  then  our  principle,  and  we  with  it,  are 
sectional,  and  are  justly  opposed  and  denounced 
as  such.  Meet  us,  then,  on  the  question  of 
whether  our  principle,  put  in  practice,  would 
wrong  your  section  ;  and  so  meet  us  as  if  it 
were  possible  that  something  may  be  said  on 
our  side.  Do  you  accept  the  challenge  ?  No  ! 
Then  you  really  believe  that  the  principle  which 
"our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  un 
der  which  we  live"  thought  so  clearly  right  as 
to  adopt  it,  and  indorse  it  again  and  again, 
upon  their  official  oaths,  is  in  fact  so  clearly 
wrong  as  to  demand  your  condemnation  with 
out  a  moment's  consideration. 

Some  of  you  delight  to  flaunt  in  our  faces  the 
warning  against  sectional  parties  given  by 
Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address.  Less 
than  eight  years  before  Washington  gave  that 
warning,  he  had,  as  President  of  the  United 
States,  approved  and  signed  an  act  of  Congress 
enforcing  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
Northwestern  Territory,  which  act  embodied 
the  policy  of  the  government  upon  that  subject 
up  to  and  at  the  very  moment  he  penned  that 
warning  ;  and  about  one  year  after  he  penned 
it,  he  wrote  Lafayette  that  he  considered  that 
prohibition  a  wise  measure,  expressing  in  the 
same  connection  his  hope  that  we  should  at 
some  time  have  a  confederacy  of  free  States. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  and  seeing  that  section- 
54 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

alism  has  since  arisen  upon  this  same  subject, 
is  that  warning  a  weapon  in  your  hands  against 
us,  or  in  our  hands  against  you  ?  Could  Wash 
ington  himself  speak,  would  he  cast  the  blame 
of  that  sectionalism  upon  us,  who  sustain  his 
policy,  or  upon  you,  who  repudiate  it  ?  We  re 
spect  .that  warning  of  Washington,  and  we 
commend  it  to  you,  together  with  his  example 
pointing  to  the  right  application  of  it. 

But  you  say  you  are  conservative — eminently 
conservative — while  we  are  revolutionary,  de 
structive,  or  something  of  the  sort.  What  is 
conservatism  ?  Is  it  not  adherence  to  the  old 
and  tried,  against  the  new  and  untried  ?  We 
stick  to,  contend  for,  the  identical  old  policy  on 
the  point  in  controversy  which  was  adopted  by 
"  our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  un 
der  which  we  live  ;"  while  you  with  one  accord 
reject,  and  scout,  and  spit  upon  that  old  policy, 
and  insist  upon  substituting  something  new. 
True,  you  disagree  among  yourselves  as  to 
what  that  substitute  shall  be.  You  are  divided 
on  new  propositions  and  plans,  but  you  are 
unanimous  in  rejecting  and  denouncing  the  old 
policy  of  the  fathers.  Some  of  you  are  for  re 
viving  the  foreign  slave-trade  ;  some  for  a  con 
gressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories  ;  some 
for  Congress  forbidding  the  Territories  to  pro 
hibit  slavery  within  their  limits  ;  some  for  main 
taining  slavery  in  the  Territories  through  the 
judiciary  ;  some  for  the  "  gur-reatpur-rinciple" 
that  "  if  one  man  would  enslave  another,  no 
55 


Abraham  Lincoln 

third  man  should  object,"  fantastically  called 
"popular  sovereignty;"  but  never  a  man 
among  you  is  in  favor  of  Federal  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  Federal  Territories,  according  to  the 
practice  of  ' '  our  fathers  who  framed  the  gov 
ernment  under  which  we  live."  Not  one  of  all 
your  various  plans  can  show  a  precedent  or  an 
advocate  in  the  century  within  which  our  gov 
ernment  originated.  Consider,  then,  whether 
your  claim  of  conservatism  for  yourselves,  and 
your  charge  of  destructiveness  against  us,  are 
based  on  the  most  clear  and  stable  founda 
tions.  . 

Again,  you  say  we  have  made  the  slavery 
question  more  prominent  than  it  formerly  was. 
We  deny  it.  We  admit  that  it  is  more  promi 
nent,  but  we  deny  that  we  made  it  so.  It  was 
not  we,  but  you,  who  discarded  the  old  policy 
of  the  fathers.  We  resisted,  and  still  resist, 
your  innovation  ;  and  thence  comes  the  greater 
prominence  of  the  question.  Would  you  have 
that  question  reduced  to  its  former  proportions  ? 
Go  back  to  that  old  policy.  What  has  been 
will  be  again,  under  the  same  conditions.  If 
you  would  have  the  peace  of  the  old  times,  re- 
adopt  the  precepts  and  policy  of  the  old  times. 

You  charge  that  we  stir  up  insurrections 
among  your  slaves.  We  deny  it  ;  and  what  is 
your  proof  ?  Harper's  Ferry  !  John  Brown  !  ! 
John  Brown  was  no  Republican  ;  and  you  have 
failed  to  implicate  a  single  Republican  in  his 
Harper's  Ferry  enterprise.  If  any  member  of 
56 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

our  party  is  guilty  in  that  matter,  you  know  it, 
or  you  do  not  know  it.  If  you  do  know  it,  you 
are  inexcusable  for  not  designating  the  man 
and  proving  the  fact.  If  you  do  not  know  it, 
you  are  inexcusable  for  asserting  it,  and  espe 
cially  for  persisting  in  the  assertion  after  you 
have  tried  and  failed  to  make  the  proof.  You 
need  not  be  told  that  persisting  in  a  charge 
which  one  does  not  know  to  be  true,  is  simply 
malicious  slander. 

Some  of  you  admit  that  no  Republican  de 
signedly  aided  or  encouraged  the  Harper's 
Ferry  affair,  but  still  insist  that  our  doctrines 
and  declarations  necessarily  lead  to  such  re 
sults.  We  do  not  believe  it.  We  know  we 
hold  no  doctrine,  and  make  no  declaration, 
which  were  not  held  to  and  made  by  "our 
fathers  who  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live."  You  never  dealt  fairly  by  us 
in  relation  to  this  affair.  When  it  occurred, 
some  important  State  elections  were  near  at 
hand,  and  you  were  in  evident  glee  with  the 
belief  that,  by  charging  the  blame  upon  us, 
you  could  get  an  advantage  of  us  in  those  elec 
tions.  The  elections  came,  and  your  expecta 
tions  were  not  quite  fulfilled.  Every  Republi 
can  man  knew  that,  as  to  himself  at  least,  your 
charge  was  a  slander,  and  he  was  not  much 
inclined  by  it  to  cast  his  vote  in  your  favor. 
Republican  doctrines  and  declarations  are  ac 
companied  with  a  continual  protest  against  any 
interference  whatever  with  your  slaves,  or  with 
57 


Abraham  Lincoln 

you  about  your  slaves.  Surely,  this  does  not 
encourage  them  to  revolt.  True,  we  do,  in 
common  with  "  our  fathers  who  framed  the 
government  under  which  we  live,"  declare  our 
belief  that  slavery  is  wrong  ;  but  the  slaves  do 
not  hear  us  declare  even  this.  For  anything 
we  say  or  do,  the  slaves  would  scarcely  know 
there  is  a  Republican  party.  I  believe  they 
would  not,  in  fact,  generally  know  it  but  for 
your  misrepresentations  of  us  in  their  hearing. 
In  your  political  contests  among  yourselves, 
each  faction  charges  the  other  with  sympathy 
with  Black  Republicanism  ;  and  then,  to  give 
point  to  the  charge,  defines  Black  Republican 
ism  to  simply  be  insurrection,  blood,  and  thun 
der  among  the  slaves. 

Slave  insurrections  are  no  more  common  now 
than  they  were  before  the  Republican  party 
was  organized.  What  induced  the  Southamp 
ton  insurrection,  twenty-eight  years  ago,  in 
which  at  least  three  times  as  many  lives  were 
lost  as  at  Harper's  Ferry  ?  You  can  scarcely 
stretch  your  very  elastic  fancy  to  the  conclusion 
that  Southampton  was  "  got  up  by  Black  Re 
publicanism."  In  the  present  state  of  things 
in  the  United  States,  I  do  not  think  a  general, 
or  even  a  very  extensive,  slave  insurrection  is 
possible.  The  indispensable  concert  of  action 
cannot  be  attained.  The  slaves  have  no  means 
of  rapid  communication  ;  nor  can  incendiary 
freemen,  black  or  white,  supply  it.  The  explo 
sive  materials  are  everywhere  in  parcels  ;  but 
53 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

there  neither  are,  nor  can  be  supplied,  the  in 
dispensable  connecting  trains. 

Much  is  said  by  Southern  people  about  the 
affection  of  slaves  for  their  masters  and  mis 
tresses  ;  and  a  part  of  it,  at  least,  is  true.  A 
plot  for  an  uprising  could  scarcely  be  devised 
and  communicated  to  twenty  individuals  before 
some  one  of  them,  to  save  the  life  of  a  favorite 
master  or  mistress,  would  divulge  it.  This  is 
the  rule  ;  and  the  slave  revolution  in  Hayti  was 
not  an  exception  to  it,  but  a  case  occurring  un 
der  peculiar  circumstances.  The  gunpowder 
plot  of  British  history,  though  not  connected 
with  slaves,  was  more  in  point.  In  that  case, 
only  about  twenty  were  admitted  to  the  secret  ; 
and  yet  one  of  them,  in  his  anxiety  to  save  a 
friend,  betrayed  the  plot  to  that  friend,  and,  by 
consequence,  averted  the  calamity.  Occasional 
poisonings  from  the  kitchen,  and  open  or 
stealthy  assassinations  in  the  field,  and  local  re 
volts  extending  to  a  score  or  so,  will  continue 
to  occur  as  the  natural  results  of  slavery  ;  but 
no  general  insurrection  of  slaves,  as  I  think, 
can  happen  in  this  country  for  a  long  time. 
Whoever  much  fears,  or  much  hopes,  for  such 
an  event,  will  be  alike  disappointed. 

In   the  language   of   Mr.    Jefferson,  uttered /\^"' 
many  years  ago,  "It  is  still  in  our  power  to 
direct  the  process  of  emancipation  and  deporta-^c     ^  £ 
tion  peaceably,  and  in  such  slow  degrees,  as 
that  the  evil  will  wear  off  insensibly  ;  and  their      L£* 
places  be,  part  passu,  filled  up  by  free  white 


Abraham  Lincoln 

laborers.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  left  to  force 
itself  on,  human  nature  must  shudder  at  the 
prospect  held  up." 

Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  mean  to  say,  nor  do  I, 
that  the  power  of  emancipation  is  in  the  Fed 
eral  Government.  He  spoke  of  Virginia  ;  and, 
as  to  the  power  of  emancipation,  I  speak  of  the 
slaveholding  States  only.  The  Federal  Govern 
ment,  however,  as  we  insist,  has  the  power  of 
restraining  the  extension  of  the  institution  —the 
power  to  insure  that  a  slave  insurrection  shall 
never  occur  on  any  American  soil  which  is  now 
free  from  slavery. 

John  Brown's  effort  was  peculiar.  It  was  not 
a  slave  insurrection.  It  was  an  attempt  by 
white  men  to  get  up  a  revolt  among  slaves,  in 
which  the  slaves  refused  to  participate.  In 
fact,  it  was  so  absurd  that  the  slaves,  with  all 
their  ignorance,  saw  plainly  enough  it  could 
not  succeed.  That  affair,  in  its  philosophy,  cor 
responds  with  the  many  attempts,  related  in 
history,  at  the  assassination  of  kings  and  em 
perors.  An  enthusiast  broods  over  the  oppres 
sion  of  a  people  till  he  fancies  himself  com 
missioned  by  Heaven  to  liberate  them.  He 
ventures  the  attempt,  which  ends  in  little  else 
than  his  own  execution.  Orsini's  attempt  on 
Louis  Napoleon,  and  John  Brown's  attempt  at 
Harper's  Ferry,  were,  in  their  philosophy,  pre 
cisely  the  same.  The  eagerness  to  cast  blame 
on  old  England  in  the  one  case,  and  on  New 
60 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

England  in  the  other,  does  not  disprove  the 
sameness  of  the  two  things. 

And  how  much  would  it  avail  you,  if  you 
could,  by  the  use  of  John  Brown,  Helper's 
Book,  and  the  like,  break  up  the  Republican 
organization  ?  Human  action  can  be  modified 
to  some  extent,  but  human  nature  cannot  be 
changed.  There  is  a  judgment  and  a  feeling 
against  slavery  in  this  nation,  which  cast  at 
least  a  million  and  a  half  of  votes.  You  cannot 
destroy  that  judgment  and  feeling — that  senti 
ment—by  breaking  up  the  political  organization 
which  rallies  around  it.  You  can  scarcely  scat 
ter  and  disperse  an  army  which  has  been  formed 
into  order  in  the  face  of  your  heaviest  fire  ; 
but  if  you  could,  how  much  would  you  gain  by 
forcing  the  sentiment  which  created  it  out  of 
the  peaceful  channel  of  the  ballot-box  into  some 
other  channel  ?  What  would  that  other  chan 
nel  probably  be  ?  Would  the  number  of  John 
Browns  be  lessened  or  enlarged  by  the  opera 
tion  ? 

p— * 

[But  you  will  break  up  the  Union  rather  than 
submit  to  a  denial  of  your  constitutional  rights./  .. 

That  has  a  somewhat  reckless  sound  ;  but  it 
would  be  palliated,  if  not  fully  justified,  were 
we  proposing,  by  the  mere  force  of  numbers,  to 
deprive  you  of  some  right  plainly  written  down 
in  the  Constitution.  But  we  are  proposing  no 
such  thing. 

When  you  make  these  declarations  you  have 
61 


Abraham  Lincoln 

a  specific  and  well-understood  allusion  to  an 
assumed  constitutional  right  of  yours  to  take 
slaves  into  the  Federal  Territories,  and  to  hold 
them  there  as  property.  But  no  such  right  is 
specially  written  in  the  Constitution.  That  in 
strument  is  literally  silent  about  any  such  right. 
We,  on  the  contrary,  deny  that  such  a  right 
has  any  existence  in  the  Constitution,  even  by 
implication. 

Your  purpose,  then,  plainly  stated,  is  that 
you  will  destroy  the  government,  unless  you  be 
allowed  to  construe  and  force  the  Constitution 
as  you  please,  on  all  points  in  dispute  between 
you  and  us.  You  will  rule  or  ruin  in  all  events. 

This,  plainly  stated,  is  your  language.  Per 
haps  you  will  say  the  Supreme  Court  has  de 
cided  the  disputed  constitutional  question  in 
your  favor.  Not  quite  so.  But  waiving  the 
lawyer's  distinction  between  dictum  and  de 
cision,  the  court  has  decided  the  question  for 
you  in  a  sort  of  way.  The  court  has  substan 
tially  said,  it  is  your  constitutional  right  to  take 
slaves  into  the  Federal  Territories,  and  to  hold 
them  there  as  property.  When  I  say  the  de 
cision  was  made  in  a  sort  of  way,  I  mean  it  was 
made  in  a  divided  court,  by  a  bare  majority  of 
the  judges,  and  they  not  quite  agreeing  with 
one  another  in  the  reasons  for  making  it  ;  that 
it  is  so  made  as  that  its  avowed  supporters  dis 
agree  with  one  another  about  its  meaning,  and 
that  it  was  mainly  based  upon  a  mistaken  state 
ment  of  fact— the  statement  in  the  opinion  that 
62 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

"  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution." 

An  inspection  of  the  Constitution  will  show 
that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  "  dis 
tinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  "  in  it.  Bear  in 
mind,  the  judges  do  not  pledge  their  judicial 
opinion  that  such  right  is  impliedly  affirmed  in 
the  Constitution  ;  but  they  pledge  their  verac 
ity  that  it  is  "  distinctly  and  expressly"  affirmed 
there — "distinctly,"  that  is,  not  mingled  with 
anything  else— "  expressly,"  that  is,  in  words 
meaning  just  that,  without  the  aid  of  any  infer 
ence,  and  susceptible  of  no  other  meaning. 

If  they  had  only  pledged  their  judicial  opin 
ion  that  such  right  is  affirmed  in  the  instrument 
by  implication,  it  would  be  open  to  others  to 
show  that  neither  the  word  "slave"  nor 
"  slavery"  is  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution, 
nor  the  word  "  property"  even,  in  any  connec 
tion  with  language  alluding  to  the  thing  slave, 
or  slavery  ;  and  that  wherever  in  that  instru 
ment  the  slave  is  alluded  to,  he  is  called  a 
"person;"  and  wherever  his  master's  legal 
right  in  relation  to  him  is  alluded  to,  it  is  spoken 
of  as  "  service  or  labor  which  may  be  due" — as 
a  debt  payable  in  service  or  labor.  Also  it 
would  be  open  to  show,  by  contemporaneous 
history,  that  this  mode  of  alluding  to  slaves  and 
slavery,  instead  of  speaking  of  them,  was  em 
ployed  on  purpose  to  exclude  from  the  Consti 
tution  the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in 
man. 

63 


Abraham  Lincoln 

To  show  all  this  is  easy  and  certain, 

When  this  obvious  mistake  of  the  judges  shall 
be  brought  to  their  notice,  is  it  not  reasonable 
to  expect  that  they  will  withdraw  the  mistaken 
statement,  and  reconsider  the  conclusion  based 
upon  it  ? 

And  then  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  "  our 
fathers  who  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live" — the  men  who  made  the  Con 
stitution — decided  this  same  constitutional  ques 
tion  in  our  favor  long  ago  :  decided  it  without 
division  among  themselves  when  making  the 
decision  ;  without  division  among  themselves 
about  the  meaning  of  it  after  it  was  made,  and, 
so  far  as  any  evidence  is  left,  without  basing  it 
upon  any  mistaken  statement  of  facts. 

Under  all  these  circumstances,  do  you  really 
feel  yourselves  justified  to  break  up  this  gov 
ernment  unless  such  a  court  decision  as  yours 
is  shall  be  at  once  submitted  to  as  a  conclusive 
and  final  rule  of  political  action  ?  But  you  will 
not  abide  the  election  of  a  Republican  presi 
dent  !  In  that  supposed  event,  you  say,  you 
will  destroy  the  Union  ;  and  then,  you  say,  the 
great  crime  of  having  destroyed  it  will  be  upon 
us  !  That  is  cool.  A  highwayman  holds  a 
pistol  to  my  ear,  and  mutters  through  his  teeth, 
"Stand  and  deliver,  or  I  shall  kill  you,  and 
then  you  will  be  a  murderer  !" 

To  be  sure,  what  the  robber  demanded  of 
me — my  money — was  my  own  ;   and  I  had  a 
clear  rigLt  to  keep  it  ;  but  it  was  no  more  my 
64 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

own  than  my  vote  is  my  own  ;  and  the  threat 
of  death  to  me,  to  extort  my  money,  and  the 
threat  of  destruction  to  the  Union,  to  extort  my 
vote,  can  scarcely  be  distinguished  in  principle. 

A  few  words  now  to  Republicans.  It  is  ex 
ceedingly  desirable  that  all  parts  of  this  great 
Confederacy  shall  be  at  peace,  and  in  harmony 
one  with  another.  Let  us  Republicans  do  our 
part  to  have  it  so.  Q£ven  though  much  pro 
voked,  let  us  do  nothing  through  passion  and 
ill  temperTJ  ^Even  though  the  Southern  people 
will  not  so  much  as  listen  to  us,  let  us  calmly 
consider  their  demands,  and  yield  to  them  if, 
in  our  deliberate  view  of  our  duty,  we  possibly 
can.  Judging  by  all  they  say  and  do,  and  by 
the  subject  and  nature  of  their  controversy  with 
us,  let  us  determine,  if  we  can,  what  will  satisfy 
them. 

Will  they  be  satisfied  if  the  Territories  be  un 
conditionally  surrendered  to  them  ?  We  know 
they  will  not.  In  all  their  present  complaints 
against  us,  the  Territories  are  scarcely  men 
tioned.  Invasions  and  insurrections  are  the 
rage  now.  Will  it  satisfy  them  if,  in  the  future, 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  invasions  and  in 
surrections  ?  We  know  it  will  not.  We  so 
know,  because  we  know  we  never  had  anything 
to  do  with  invasions  and  insurrections  ;  and 
yet  this  total  abstaining  does  not  exempt  us 
from  the  charge  and  the  denunciation. 

The  question  recurs,  What  will  satisfy  them  ? 
Simply  this  :  we  must  not  only  let  them  alone, 
65 


Abraham   Lincoln 

but  we  must  somehow  convince  them  that  \ve 
do  let  them  alone.  This,  we  know  by  experi 
ence,  is  no  easy  task.  We  have  been  so  trying 
to  convince  them  from  the  very  beginning  of 
our  organization,  but  with  no  success.  In  all 
our  platforms  and  speeches  we  have  constantly 
protested  our  purpose  to  let  them  alone  ;  but 
this  has  had  no  tendency  to  convince  them. 
Alike  unavailing  to  convince  them  is  the  fact 
that  they  have  never  detected  a  man  of  us  in 
any  attempt  to  disturb  them. 

These  natural  and  apparently  adequate  means 
all  failing,  what  will  convince  them  ?  This, 
and  this  only  :  cease  to  call  slavery  wrong,  and 
join  them  in  calling  it  right.  And  this  must  be 
done  thoroughly— done  in  acts  as  well  as  in 
words.  Silence  will  not  be  tolerated — we  must 
place  ourselves  avowedly  with  them.  Senator 
Douglas's  new  sedition  law  must  be  enacted 
and  enforced,  suppressing  all  declarations  that 
slavery  is  wrong,  whether  made  in  politics,  in 
presses,  in  pulpits,  or  in  private.  We  must  ar 
rest  and  return  their  fugitive  slaves  with  greedy 
pleasure.  We  must  pull  down  our  free-State 
constitutions.  The  whole  atmosphere  must  be 
disinfected  from  all  taint  of  opposition  to  sla 
very,  before  they  will  cease  to  believe  that  all 
their  troubles  proceed  from  us. 

I  am  quite  aware  they  do  not  state  their  case 

precisely   in   this   way.     Most   of   them  would 

probably  say  to  us,  "  Let  us  alone  ;  do  nothing 

to  us,  and  say  what  you  please  about  slavery." 

66 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

But  we  do  let  them  alone — have  never  disturbed 
them — so  that,  after  all,  it  is  what  we  say  which 
dissatisfies  them.  They  will  continue  to  accuse 
us  of  doing,  until  we  cease  saying. 

I  am  also  aware  they  have  not  as  yet  in  terms 
demanded  the  overthrow  of  our  free-State  con 
stitutions.  Yet  those  constitutions  declare  the 
wrong  of  slavery  with  more  solemn  emphasis 
than  do  all  other  sayings  against  it  ;  and  when 
all  these  other  sayings  shall  have  been  silenced, 
the  overthrow  of  these  constitutions  will  be  de 
manded,  and  nothing  be  left  to  resist  the  de 
mand.  It  is  nothing  to  the  contrary  that  they 
do  not  demand  the  whole  of  this  just  now.  De 
manding  what  they  do,  and  for  the  reason  they 
do,  they  can  voluntarily  stop  nowhere  short  of 
this  consummation.  Holding,  as  they  do,  that 
slavery  is  morally  right  and  socially  elevating, 
they  cannot  cease  to  demand  a  full  national 
recognition  of  it  as  a  legal  right  and  a  social 
blessing. 

Nor  can  we  justifiably  withhold  this  on  any 
ground  save  our  conviction  that  slavery  is 
wrong.  If  slavery  is  right,  all  words,  acts, 
laws,  and  constitutions  against  it  are  them 
selves  wrong,  and  should  be  silenced  and  swept 
away.  If  it  is  right,  we  cannot  justly  object  to 
its  nationality — its  universality  ;  if  it  is  wrong, 
they  cannot  justly  insist  upon  its  extension — its 
enlargement.  All  they  ask  we  could  readily 
grant,  if  we  thought  slavery  right  ;  all  we  ask 
they  could  as  readily  grant,  if  they  thought  it 
67 


Abraham   Lincoln 

wrong.  Their  thinking  it  right  and  our  think 
ing  it  wrong  is  the  precise  fact  upon  which  de 
pends  the  whole  controversy.  Thinking  it 
right,  as  they  do,  they  are  not  to  blame  for  de 
siring  its  full  recognition  as  being  right  ;  but 
thinking  it  wrong,  as  we  do,  can  we  yield  to 
them  ?  Can  we  cast  our  votes  with  their  view, 
and  against  our  own  ?  In  view  of  our  moral, 
social,  and  political  responsibilities,  can  we  do 
this? 

Wrong  as  we  think  slavery  is,  we  can  yet 
afford  to  let  it  alone  where  it  is,  because  that 
much  is  due  to  the  necessity  arising  from  its 
actual  presence  in  the  nation  j  but  can  we, 
while  our  votes  will  prevent  it,  allow  it  to 
spread  into  the  national  Territories,  and  to 
overrun  us  here  in  these  free  States  ?  If  our 
sense  of  duty  forbids  this,  then  let  us  stand  by 
our  duty  fearlessly  and  effectively.  Let  us  be 
diverted  by  none  of  those  sophistical  contri 
vances  wherewith  we  are  so  industriously  plied 
and  belabored— contrivances  such  as  groping 
for  some  middle  ground  between  the  right  and 
the  wrong  :  vain  as  the  search  for  a  man  who 
should  be  neither  a  living  man  nor  a  dead 
man  ;  such  as  a  policy  of  "  don't  care"  on  a 
question  about  which  all  true  men  do  care  ; 
such  as  Union  appeals  beseeching  true  Union 
men  to  yield  to  Disunionists,  reversing  the 
divine  rule,  and  calling,  not  the  sinners,  but 
the  righteous  to  repentance  ;  such  as  invoca 
tions  to  Washington,  imploring  men  to  unsay 
68 


Address  at  Cooper  Institute 

what  Washington  said  and  undo  what  Wash 
ington  did. 

Neither  let  us  be  slandered  from  our  duty  by 
false  accusations  against  us,  nor  frightened 
from  it  by  menaces  of  destruction  to  the  gov 
ernment,  nor  of  dungeons  to  ourselves.  Let 
us  have  faith  that  right  makes  might,  and  in 
that  faith  let  us  to  the  end  dare  to  do  our  duty 
as  we  understand  it. 


Farewell  at  Springfield 

February  n,  1861 

[These  words,  to  which  subsequent  events 
have  given  an  added  note  of  solemnity,  were 
spoken  to  a  vast  audience  of  Lincoln's  fellow- 
citizens  upon  the  rainy  February  day  when  he 
left  Springfield  for  Washington  to  assume  the 
duties  of  the  Presidency.] 

My  Friends:  No  one,  not  in  my  situation, 
can  appreciate  my  feeling  of  sadness  at  this 
parting.  To  this  place,  and  the  kindness  of 
these  people,  I  owe  everything.  Here  I  have 
lived  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  have  passed 
from  a  young  to  an  old  man.  Here  my  chil 
dren  have  been  born,  and  one  is  buried.  I 
now  leave,  not  knowing  when  or  whether  ever 
I  may  return,  with  a  task  before  me  greater 
than  that  which  rested  upon  Washington. 
Without  the  assistance  of  that  Divine  Being 
who  ever  attended  him,  I  cannot  succeed. 
With  that  assistance,  I  cannot  fail.  Trusting 
in  Him  who  can  go  with  me,  and  remain  with 
you,  and  be  everywhere  for  good,  let  us  confi 
dently  hope  that  all  will  yet  be  well.  To  His 
care  commending  you,  as  I  hope  in  your  prayers 
you  will  commend  me,  I  bid  you  an  affectionate 
farewell. 

70 


Speech    in    Independence    Hall, 
Philadelphia 

February  22,  1861 

[During  the  journey  to  Washington  Lincoln 
made  many  brief  addresses.  The  following, 
spoken  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia, 
upon  Washington's  Birthday,  is  one  of  the  most 
felicitous,  and  the  time  and  place  of  its  delivery 
give  it  additional  interest.] 

Mr.  Cuyler :  I  am  filled  with  deep  emotion 
at  finding  myself  standing  in  this  place,  where 
were  collected  together  the  wisdom,  the  patri 
otism,  the  devotion  to  principle,  from  which 
sprang  the  institutions  under  which  we  live. 
You  have  kindly  suggested  to  me  that  in  my 
hands  is  the  task  of  restoring  peace  to  our  dis 
tracted  country.  I  can  say  in  return,  sir,  that 
all.  the  political  sentiments  I  entertain  have 
been  drawn,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  draw 
them,  from  the  sentiments  which  originated  in 
and  were  given  to  the  world  from  this  hall.  I 
have  never  had  a  feeling,  politically,  that  did 
not  spring  from  the  sentiments  embodied  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  I  have  often 
pondered  over  the  dangers  which  were  incurred 
by  the  men  who  assembled  here  and  framed 


Abraham  Lincoln 

and  adopted  that  Declaration.  I  have  pon 
dered  over  the  toils  that  were  endured  by  the 
officers  and  soldiers  of  the  army  who  achieved 
that  independence.  I  have  often  inquired  of 
myself  what  great  principle  or  idea  it  was  that 
kept  this  Confederacy  so  long  together.  It  was 
not  the  mere  matter  of  separation  of  the  col 
onies  from  the  motherland,  but  that  sentiment 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which  gave 
liberty  not  alone  to  the  people  of  this  country, 
but  hope  to  all  the  world,  for  all  future  time. 
It  was  that  which  gave  promise  that  in  due 
time  the  weights  would  be  lifted  from  the  shoul 
ders  of  all  men,  and  that  all  should  have  an 
equal  chance.  This  is  the  sentiment  embodied 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Now,  my 
friends,  can  this  country  be  saved  on  that 
basis?  If  it  can,  I  will  consider  myself  one  of 
the  happiest  men  in  the  world  if  I  can  help  to 
save  it.  If  it  cannot  be  saved  upon  that  prin 
ciple,  it  will  be  truly  awful.  But  if  this  country 
cannot  be  saved  without  giving  up  that  princi 
ple,  I  was  about  to  say  I  would  rather  be  assas 
sinated  on  this  spot  than  surrender  it.  Now, 
in  my  view  of  the  present  aspect  of  affairs, 
there  is  no  need  of  bloodshed  and  war.  There 
is  no  necessity  for  it.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  such 
a  course  ;  and  I  may  say  in  advance  that  there 
will  be  no  bloodshed  unless  it  is  forced  upon 
the  government.  The  government  will  not  use 
force,  unless  force  is  used  against  it. 

My   friends,    this   is   wholly  an   unprepared 
72 


Speech  in  Independence  Hall 

speech.  I  did  not  expect  to  be  called  on  to  say 
a  word  when  I  came  here.  I  supposed  I  was 
merely  to  do  something  toward  raising  a  flag. 
I  may,  therefore,  have  said  something  indis 
creet.  [Cries  of  "  No,  no."]  But  I  have  said 
nothing  but  what  I  am  willing  to  live  by,  and, 
if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  Almighty  God,  to  die  by. 


73 


First  Inaugural  Address. 

March  4,  1861. 

["  Mr.  Lincoln  was  simply  introduced  by 
Senator  Baker,  of  Oregon,  and  delivered  his 
inaugural  address.  His  voice  had  great  carry 
ing  capacity,  and  the  vast  crowd  heard  with 
ease  a  speech  of  which  every  sentence  was 
fraught  with  an  importance  and  scrutinized 
with  an  anxiety  far  beyond  that  of  any  other 
speech  ever  delivered  in  the  United  States.  .  .  . 
The  inaugural  address  was  simple,  earnest,  and 
direct,  unincumbered  by  that  rhetorical  orna 
mentation  which  the  American  people  have  al 
ways  admired  as  the  highest  form  of  eloquence. 
Those  Northerners  who  had  expected  magnilo 
quent  periods  and  exaggerated  outbursts  of 
patriotism  were  disappointed,  and  as  they  lis 
tened  in  vain  for  the  scream  of  the  eagle,  many 
grumbled  at  the  absence  of  what  they  conceived 
to  be  force.  Yet  the  general  feeling  was  of  sat 
isfaction,  which  grew  as  the  address  was  more 
thoroughly  studied."  —  Morse's  "Abraham 
Lincoln."  \ 

Fellow-citizens  of  the  United  States :  In 
compliance  with  a  custom  as  old  as  the  govern 
ment  itself,  I  appear  before  you  to  address  you 
briefly,  and  to  take  in  your  presence  the  oath 
prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  to  be  taken  by  the  President  "  before 
he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office." 
74 


First  Inaugural  Address 

I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  at  present  for 
me  to  discuss  those  matters  of  administration 
about  which  there  is  no  special  anxiety  or  ex 
citement. 

Apprehension  seems  to  exist  among  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Southern  States  that  by  the  accession 
of  a  Republican  administration  their  property 
and  their  peace  and  personal  security  are  to  be 
endangered.  There  has  never  been  any  rea 
sonable  cause  for  such  apprehension.  Indeed, 
the  most  ample  evidence  to  the  contrary  has  all 
the  while  existed  and  been  open  to  their  inspec 
tion.  It  is  found  in  nearly  all  the  published 
speeches  of  him  who  now  addresses  you.  I  do 
but  quote  from  one  of  those  speeches  when  I 
declare  that  "  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  in 
directly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe 
I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no 
inclination  to  do  so."  Those  who  nominated 
and  elected  me  did  so  with  full  knowledge  that 
I  had  made  this  and  many  similar  declarations, 
and  had  never  recanted  them.  And,  more  than 
this,  they  placed  in  the  platform  for  my  accept 
ance,  and  as  a  law  to  themselves  and  to  me,  the 
clear  and  emphatic  resolution  which  I  now 
read  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  maintenance  inviolate 
ot  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the 
right  of  each  State  to  order  and  control  its  own 
domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judg 
ment  exclusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of 
power  on  which  the  perfection  and  endurance 

75 


Abraham  Lincoln 

of  our  political  fabric  depend,  and  we  denounce 
the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  force  of  the  soil 
of  any  State  or  Territory,  no  matter  under  what 
pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of  crimes." 

I  now  reiterate  these  sentiments  ;  and,  in 
doing  so,  I  only  press  upon  the  public  attention 
the  most  conclusive  evidence  of  which  the  case 
is  susceptible,  that  the  property,  peace,  and 
security  of  no  section  are  to  be  in  any  wise  en 
dangered  by  the  now  incoming  administration. 
I  add,  too,  that  all  the  protection  which,  consis 
tently  with  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  can 
be  given,  will  be  cheerfully  given  to  all  the 
States  when  lawfully  demanded,  for  whatever 
cause — as  cheerfully  to  one  section  as  to  an 
other. 

There  is  much  controversy  about  the  deliver 
ing  up  of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor.  The 
clause  I  now  read  is  as  plainly  written  in  the 
Constitution  as  any  other  of  its  provisions  : 

1 '  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  an 
other,  shall  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regu 
lation  therein  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be 
due. ' ' 

It  is  scarcely  questioned  that  this  provision 
was  intended  by  those  who  made  it  for  the  re 
claiming  of  what  we  call  fugitive  slaves  ;  and 
the  intention  of  the  lawgiver  is  the  law.  All 
members  of  Congress  swear  their  support  to  the 
whole  Constitution — to  this  provision  as  much 
76 


First  Inaugural  Address 

as  to  any  other.  To  the  proposition,  then,  that 
slaves  whose  cases  come  within  the  terms  of 
this  clause  "  shall  be  delivered  up,"  their  oaths 
are  unanimous.  Now,  if  they  would  make  the 
effort  in  good  temper,  could  they  not  with 
nearly  equal  unanimity  frame  and  pass  a  law 
by  means  of  which  to  keep  good  that  unanimous 
oath? 

There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  whether 
this  clause  should  be  enforced  by  national  or 
by  State  authority  ;  but  surely  that  difference 
is  not  a  very  material  one.  If  the  slave  is  to 
be  surrendered,  it  can  be  of  but  little  conse 
quence  to  him  or  to  others  by  which  authority 
it  is  done.  And  should  any  one  in  any  case  be 
content  that  his  oath  shall  go  unkept  on  a 
merely  unsubstantial  controversy  as  to  how  it 
shall  be  kept  ? 

Again,  in  any  law  upon  this  subject,  ought 
not  all  the  safeguards  of  liberty  known  in  civ 
ilized  and  humane  jurisprudence  to  be  intro 
duced,  so  that  a  free  man  be  not,  in  any  case, 
surrendered  as  a  slave  ?  And  might  it  not  be 
well  at  the  same  time  to  provide  by  law  for  the 
enforcement  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution 
which  guarantees  that  "  the  citizen  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  im 
munities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States"  ? 

I  take  the  official  oath  to-day  with  no  mental 

reservations,  and  with  no  purpose  to  construe 

the  Constitution  or  laws  by  any  hypercritical 

rules.    And  while  I  do  not  choose  now  to  specify 

77 


Abraham   Lincoln 

particular  acts  of  Congress  as  proper  to  be  en 
forced,  I  do  suggest  that  it  will  be  much  safer 
for  all,  both  in  official  and  private  stations,  to 
conform  to  and  abide  by  all  those  acts  which 
stand  unrepealed,  than  to  violate  any  o£  them, 
trusting  to  find  impunity  in  having  them  held 
to  be  unconstitutional. 

It  is  seventy-two  years  since  the  first  inaugu 
ration  of  a  President  under  our  National  Con 
stitution.  During  that  period  fifteen  different 
and  greatly  distinguished  citizens  have,  in  suc 
cession,  administered  the  executive  branch  of 
the  government.  They  have  conducted  it 
through  many  perils,  and  generally  with  great 
success.  Yet,  with  all  this  scope  of  precedent, 
I  now  enter  upon  the  same  task  for  the  brief 
constitutional  term  of  four  years  under  great 
and  peculiar  difficulty.  A  disruption  of  the 
Federal  Union,  heretofore  only  menaced,  is 
now  formidably  attempted. 

I  hold  that,  in  contemplation  of  universal  law 
and  of  the  Constitution,  the  Union  of  these 
States  is  perpetual.  Perpetuity  is  implied,  if 
not  expressed,  in  the  fundamental  law  of  all 
national  governments.  It  is  safe  to  assert  that 
no  government  proper  ever  had  a  provision  in 
its  organic  law  for  its  own  termination.  Con 
tinue  to  execute  all  the  express  provisions  of 
o»r  National  Constitution,  and  the  Union  will 
endure  forever — it  being  impossible  to  destroy 
it  except  by  some  action  not  provided  for  in  the 
instrument  itself. 

73 


First   Inaugural  Address 

Again,  if  the  United  States  be  not  a  govern 
ment  proper,  but  an  association  of  States  in  the 
nature  of  contract  merely,  can  it,  as  a  contract, 
be  peaceably  unmade  by  less  than  all  the  par 
ties  who  made  it  ?  One  party  to  a  contract  may 
violate  it — break  it,  so  to  speak  ;  but  does  it  not 
require  all  to  lawfully  rescind  it  ? 

Descending  from  these  general  principles, 
we  find  the  proposition  that,  in  legal  contem 
plation  the  Union  is  perpetual  confirmed  by  the 
history  of  the  Union  itself.  The  Union  is  much 
older  than  the  Constitution.  It  was  formed,  in 
fact,  by  the  Articles  of  Association  in  1774.  It 
was  matured  and  continued  by  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  in  1776.  It  was  further  ma 
tured,  and  the  faith  of  all  the  then  thirteen 
States  expressly  plighted  and  engaged  that  it 
should  be  perpetual,  by  the  Articles  of  Confed 
eration  in  1778.  And,  finally,  in  1787  one  of 
the  declared  objects  for  ordaining  and  estab 
lishing  the  Constitution  was  "  to  form  a  more 
perfect  Union." 

But  if  the  destruction  of  the  Union  by  one  or 
by  a  part  only  of  the  States  be  lawfully  possi 
ble,  the  Union  is  less  perfect  than  before  the 
Constitution,  having  lost  the  vital  element  of 
perpetuity. 

It  follows  from  these  views  that  no  State  upon 
its  own  mere  motion  can  lawfully  get  out  of  the 
Union  ;  that  resolves  and  ordinances  to  that 
effect  are  legally  void  ;  and  that  acts  of  vio 
lence,  within  any  State  or  States,  against  the 
79 


Abraham  Lincoln 

authority  of  the  United  States,  are  insurrection 
ary  or  revolutionary,  according  to  circum 
stances. 

I  therefore  consider  that,  in  view  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  unbroken  ; 
and  to  the  extent  of  my  ability  I  shall  take  care, 
as  the  Constitution  itself  expressly  enjoins  upon 
me,  that  the  laws  of  the  Union  be  faithfully 
executed  in  all  the  States.  Doing  this  I  deem 
to  be  only  a  simple  duty  on  my  part  ;  and  I 
shall  perform  it  so  far  as  practicable,  unless  my 
rightful  masters,  the  American  people,  shall 
withhold  the  requisite  means,  or  in  some  au 
thoritative  manner  direct  the  contrary.  I  trust 
this  will  not  be  regarded  as  a  menace,  but  only 
as  the  declared  purpose  of  the  Union  that  it 
will  constitutionally  defend  and  maintain  itself. 

In  doing  this  there  needs  to  be  no  bloodshed 
or  violence  ;  and  there  shall  be  none,  unless  it 
be  forced  upon  the  national  authority.  The 
power  confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold,  oc 
cupy,  and  possess  the  property  and  places  be 
longing  to  the  government,  and  to  collect  the 
duties  and  imposts  ;  but  beyond  what  may  be 
necessary  for  these  objects,  there  will  be  no  in 
vasion,  no  using  of  force  against  or  among  the 
people  anywhere.  Where  hostility  to  the 
United  States,  in  any  interior  locality,  shall  be 
so  great  and  universal  as  to  prevent  competent 
resident  citizens  from  holding  the  Federal 
offices,  there  will  be  no  attempt  to  force  obnox 
ious  strangers  among  the  people  for  that  object, 
So 


First   Inaugural  Address 

While  the  strict  legal  right  may  exist  in  the 
government  to  enforce  the  exercise  of  these 
offices,  the  attempt  to  do  so  would  be  so  irritat 
ing,  and  so  nearly  impracticable  withal,  that  I 
deem  it  better  to  forego  for  the  time  the  uses  of 
such  offices. 

The  mails,  unless  repelled,  will  continue  to 
be  furnished  in  all  parts  of  the  Union.  So  far 
as  possible,  the  people  everywhere  shall  have 
that  sense  of  perfect  security  which  is  most 
favorable  to  calm  thought  and  reflection.  The 
course  here  indicated  will  be  followed  unless 
current  events  and  experience  shall  show  a 
modification  or  change  to  be  proper,  and  in 
every  case  and  exigency  my  best  discretion  will 
be  exercised  according  to  circumstances  actually 
existing,  and  with  a  view  and  a  hope  of  a  peace 
ful  solution  of  the  national  troubles  and  the  res 
toration  of  fraternal  sympathies  and  affections. 

That  there  are  persons  in  one  section  or  an 
other  who  seek  to  destroy  the  Union  at  all 
events,  and  are  glad  of  any  pretext  to  do  it,  I 
will  neither  affirm  nor  deny  ;  but  if  there  be 
such,  I  need  address  no  word  to  them.  To 
those,  however,  who  really  love  the  Union  may 
I  not  speak  ? 

Before  entering  upon  so  grave  a  matter  as 
the  destruction  of  our  national  fabric,  with  all 
its  benefits,  its  memories,  and  its  hopes,  would 
it  not  be  wise  to  ascertain  precisely  why  we  do 
it  ?  Will  you  hazard  so  desperate  a  step  while 
there  is  any  possibility  that  any  portion  of  the 
Si 


Abraham   Lincoln 

ills  you  fly  from  have  no  real  existence  ?  Will 
you,  while  the  certain  ills  you  fly  to  are  greater 
than  all  the  real  ones  you  fly  from — will  you 
risk  the  commission  of  so  fearful  a  mistake  ? 

All  profess  to  be  content  in  the  Union  if  all 
constitutional  rights  can  be  maintained.  Is  it 
true,  then,  that  any  right,  plainly  written  in 
the  Constitution,  has  been  denied?  I  think 
not.  Happily  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted 
that  no  party  can  reach  to  the  audacity  of  doing 
this.  Think,  if  you  can,  of  a  single  instance  in 
which  a  plainly  written  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution  has  ever  been  denied.  If  by  the  mere 
force  of  numbers  a  majority  should  deprive  a 
minority  of  any  clearly  written  constitutional 
right,  it  might,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  justify 
revolution — certainly  would  if  such  a  right  were 
a  vital  one.  But  such  is  not  our  case.  All  the 
vital  rights  of  minorities  and  of  individuals  are 
so  plainly  assured  to  them  by  affirmations  and 
negations,  guarantees  and  prohibitions,  in  the 
Constitution,  that  controversies  never  arise  con 
cerning  them.  But  no  organic  law  can  ever  be 
framed  with  a  provision  specifically  applicable 
to  every  question  which  may  occur  in  practical 
administration.  No  foresight  can  anticipate, 
nor  any  document  of  reasonable  length  contain, 
express  provisions  for  all  possible  questions. 
Shall  fugitives  from  labor  be  surrendered  by 
national  or  by  State  authority  ?  The  Constitu 
tion  does  not  expressly  say.  May  Congress 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories?  The  Con- 
82 


First  Inaugural  Address 

stitution  does  not  expressly  say.  Must  Con 
gress  protect  slavery  in  the  Territories  ?  The 
Constitution  does  not  expressly  say. 

From  questions  of  this  class  spring  all  our 
constitutional  controversies,  and  we  divide  upon 
them  into  majorities  and  minorities.  If  the 
minority  will  not  acquiesce,  the  majority  must, 
or  the  government  must  cease.  There  is  no 
other  alternative  ;  for  continuing  the  govern 
ment  is  acquiescence  on  one  side  or  the  other. 

If  a  minority  in  such  case  will  secede  rather 
than  acquiesce,  they  make  a  precedent  which 
in  turn  will  divide  and  ruin  them  ;  for  a  minor 
ity  of  their  own  will  secede  from  them  when 
ever  a  majority  refuses  to  be  controlled  by  such 
minority.  For  instance,  why  may  not  any  por 
tion  of  a  new  confederacy  a  year  or  two  hence 
arbitrarily  secede  again,  precisely  as  portions 
of  the  present  Union  now  claim  to  secede  from 
it  ?  All  who  cherish  disunion  sentiments  are 
now  being  educated  to  the  exact  temper  of 
doing  this. 

Is  there  such  perfect  identity  of  interests 
among  the  States  to  compose  a  new  Union,  as 
to  produce  harmony  only,  and  prevent  renewed 
secession  ? 

Plainly,  the  central  idea  of  secession  is  the 
essence  of  anarchy.  A  majority  held  in  re 
straint  by  constitutional  checks  and  limitations, 
and  always  changing  easily  with  deliberate 
changes  of  popular  opinions  and  sentiments,  is 
the  only  true  sovereign  of  a  free  people.  Who-  . 
83 


Abraham   Lincoln 

ever  rejects  it  does,  of  necessity,  fly  to  anarchy 
or  to  despotism.  Unanimity  is  impossible  ;  the 
rule  of  a  minority,  as  a  permanent  arrange 
ment,  is  wholly  inadmissible  ;  so  that,  rejecting 
the  majority  principle,  anarchy  or  despotism  in 
some  form  is  all  that  is  left. 

I  do  not  forget  the  position,  assumed  by  some, 
that  constitutional  questions  are  to  be  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  ;  nor  do  I  deny  that  such 
decisions  must  be  binding,  in  any  case,  upon 
the  parties  to  a  suit,  as  to  the  object  of  that  suit, 
while  they  are  also  entitled  to  very  high  respect 
and  consideration  in  all  parallel  cases  by  all 
other  departments  of  the  government.  And 
while  it  is  obviously  possible  that  such  decision 
may  be  erroneous  in  any  given  case,  still  the 
evil  effect  following  it,  being  limited  to  that 
particular  case,  with  the  chance  that  it  may  be 
overruled  and  never  become  a  precedent  for 
other  cases,  can  better  be  borne  than  could  the 
evils  of  a  different  practice.  At  the  same  time, 
the  candid  citizen  must  confess  that  if  the  pol 
icy  of  the  government,  upon  vital  questions 
affecting  the  whole  people,  is  to  be  irrevocably 
fixed  by  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the 
instant  they  are  made,  in  ordinary  litigation 
between  parties  in  personal  actions,  the  people 
will  have  ceased  to  be  their  own  rulers,  having 
to  that  extent  practically  resigned  their  govern 
ment  into  the  hands  of  that  eminent  tribunal. 
Nor  is  there  in  this  view  any  assault  upon  the 
court  or  the  judges.  It  is  a  duty  from  which 
84 


First   Inaugural  Address 

they  may  not  shrink  to  decide  cases  properly 
brought  before  them,  and  it  is  no  fault  of  theirs 
if  others  seek  to  turn  their  decisions  to  political 
purposes. 

One  section  of  our  country  believes  slavery 
is  right,  and  ought  to  be  extended,  while  the 
other  believes  it  is  wrong,  and  ought  not  to  be 
extended.  This  is  the  only  substantial  dispute. 
The  fugitive-slave  clause  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  law  for  the  suppression  of  the  foreign 
slave-trade,  are  each  as  well  enforced,  perhaps, 
as  any  law  can  ever  be  in  a  community  where 
the  moral  sense  of  the  people  imperfectly  sup 
ports  the  law  itself.  The  great  body  of  the 
people  abide  by  the  dry  legal  obligation  in  both 
cases,  and  a  few  break  over  in  each.  This,  I 
think,  cannot  be  perfectly  cured  ;  and  it  would 
be  worse  in  both  cases  after  the  separation  of 
the  sections  than  before.  The  foreign  slave- 
trade,  now  imperfectly  suppressed,  would  be 
ultimately  revived,  without  restriction,  in  one 
section,  while  fugitive  slaves,  now  only  partially 
surrendered,  would  not  be  surrendered  at  all 
by  the  other. 

Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  separate. 
We  cannot  remove  our  respective  sections  from 
each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable  wall  be 
tween  them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be 
divorced,  and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  be 
yond  the  reach  of  each  other  ;  but  the  different 
parts  of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  They  can 
not  but  remain  face  to  face,  and  intercourse, 
35 


Abraham   Lincoln 

either  amicable  or  hostile,  must  continue  be 
tween  them.  Is  it  possible,  then,  to  make  that 
intercourse  more  advantageous  or  more  satis 
factory  after  separation  than  before  ?  Can 
aliens  make  treaties  easier  than  friends  can 
make  laws?  Can  treaties  be  more  faithfully 
enforced  between  aliens  than  laws  can  among 
friends  ?  Suppose  you  go  to  war,  you  cannot 
fight  always  ;  and  when,  after  much  loss  on 
both  sides,  and  no  gain  on  either,  you  cease 
fighting,  the  identical  old  questions  as  to  terms 
of  intercourse  are  again  upon  you. 

This  country,  with  its  institutions,  belongs 
to  the  people  who  inhabit  it.  Whenever  they 
shall  grow  weary  o£  the  existing  government, 
they  can  exercise  their  constitutional  right  of 
amending  it,  or  their  revolutionary  right  to  dis 
member  or  overthrow  it.  I  cannot  be  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that  many  worthy  and  patriotic  citi 
zens  are  desirous  of  having  the  National  Con 
stitution  amended.  While  I  make  no  recom 
mendation  of  amendments,  I  fully  recognize  the 
rightful  authority  of  the  people  over  the  whole 
subject,  to  be  exercised  in  either  of  -the  modes 
prescribed  in  the  instrument  itself  ;  and  I 
should,  under  existing  circumstances,  favor 
rather  than  oppose  a  fair  opportunity  being 
afforded  the  people  to  act  upon  it.  I  will  ven 
ture  to  add  that  to  me  the  convention  mode 
seems  preferable,  in  that  it  allows  amendments 
to  originate  with  the  people  themselves,  instead 
of  only  permitting  them  to  take  or  reject  propo- 
86 


First  Inaugural  Address 

sitions  originated  by  others  not  especially 
chosen  for  the  purpose,  and  which  might  not 
be  precisely  such  as  they  would  wish  to  either 
accept  or  refuse.  I  understand  a  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution — which  amend 
ment,  however,  I  have  not  seen — has  passed 
Congress,  to  the  effect  that  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  shall  never  interfere  with  the  domestic  in 
stitutions  of  the  States,  including  that  of  per 
sons  held  to  service.  To  avoid  misconstruction 
of  what  I  have  said,  I  depart  from  my  purpose 
not  to  speak  of  particular  amendments  so  far  as 
to  say  that,  holding  such  a  provision  to  now  be 
implied  constitutional  law,  I  have  no  objection 
to  its  being  made  express  and  irrevocable. 

The  chief  magistrate  derives  all  his  authority 
from  the  people,  and  they  have  conferred  none 
upon  him  to  fix  terms  for  the  separation  of  the 
States  The  people  themselves  can  do  this  also 
if  they  choose  ;  but  the  executive,  as  such,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  His  duty  is  to  adminis 
ter  the  present  government,  as  it  came  to  his 
hands,  and  to  transmit  it,  unimpaired  by  him, 
to  his  successor. 

Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient  confidence 
in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the  people  ?  Is  there 
any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world  ?  In  our 
present  differences  is  either  party  without  faith 
of  being  in  the  right  ?  If  the  Almighty  Ruler 
of  Nations,  with  his  eternal  truth  and  justice, 
be  on  your  side  of  the  North,  or  on  yours  of  the 
South,  that  truth  and  that  justice  will  surely 
87 


Abraham  Lincoln 

prevail  by  the  judgment  of  this  great  tribuna\ 
of  the  American  people. 

By  the  frame  of  the  government  under  which 
we  live,  this  same  people  have  wisely  given 
their  public  servants  but  little  power  for  mis 
chief  ;  and  have,  with  equal  wisdom,  provided 
for  the  return  of  that  little  to  their  own  hands 
at  very  short  intervals.  While  the  people  re 
tain  their  virtue  and  vigilance,  no  administra 
tion,  by  any  extreme  of  wickedness  or  folly, 
can  very  seriously  injure  the  government  in  the 
short  space  of  four  years. 

My  countrymen,  one  and  all,  think  calmly 
and  well  upon  this  whole  subject.  Nothing 
valuable  can  be  lost  by  taking  time.  If  there 
be  an  object  to  hurry  any  of  you  in  hot  haste  to 
a  step  which  you  would  never  take  deliberately, 
that  object  will  be  frustrated  by  taking  time  ; 
but  no  good  object  can  be  frustrated  by  it. 
Such  of  you  as  are  now  dissatisfied,  still  have 
the  old  Constitution  unimpaired,  and,  on  the 
sensitive  point,  the  laws  of  your  own  framing 
under  it  ;  while  the  new  administration  will 
have  no  immediate  power,  if  it  would,  to  change 
either.  If  it  were  admitted  that  you  who  are 
dissatisfied  hold  the  right  side  in  the  dispute, 
there  still  is  no  single  good  reason  for  precipi 
tate  action.  Intelligence,  patriotism,  Christian 
ity,  and  a  firm  reliance  on  Him  who  has  never 
yet  forsaken  this  favored  land,  are  still  com 
petent  to  adjust  in  the  best  way  all  our  present 
difficulty. 


First  Inaugural  Address 

In  your  hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow-country 
men,  and  not  in  mine,  is  the  momentous  issue 
of  civil  war.  The  government  will  not  assail 
you.  You  can  have  no  conflict  without  being 
yourselves  the  aggressors.  You  have  no  oath 
registered  in  heaven  to  destroy  the  government, 
while  I  shall  have  the  most  solemn  one  to  "  pre 
serve,  protect,  and  defend  it." 

I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies,  but 
friends.  We  must  not  be  enemies.  Though 
passion  may  have  strained,  it  must  not  break 
our  bonds  of  affection.  The  mystic  chords  of 
memory,  stretching  from  every  battle-field  and 
patriot  grave  to  every  living  heart  and  hearth 
stone  all  over  this  broad  land,  will  yet  swell  the 
chorus  of  the  Union  when  again  touched,  as 
surely  they  will  be,  by  the  better  angels  of  our 
nature. 


Emancipation  Proclamation 

January  i,  1863 

BY  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF 
AMERICA  : 

A  Proclamation 

Whereas,  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  Sep 
tember,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-two,  a  proclamation 
was  issued  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  containing,  among  other  things,  the  fol 
lowing,  to  wit  : 

"  That  on  the  first  day  of  January,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-three,  all  persons  held  as  slaves  within 
any  State,  or  designated  part  of  a  State,  the 
people  whereof  shall  then  be  in  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  shall  be  then,  thenceforward, 
and  forever  free  ;  and  the  Executive  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  including  the  mili 
tary  and  naval  authority  thereof,  will  recognize 
and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such  persons,  and 
will  do  no  act  or  acts  to  repress  such  persons, 
or  any  of  them,  in  any  efforts  they  may  make 
for  their  actual  freedom. 

"  That  the  Executive  will,  on  the  first  day  of 
90 


Emancipation  Proclamation 

January  aforesaid,  by  proclamation,  designate 
the  States  and  parts  of  States,  if  any,  in  which 
the  people  thereof  respectively  shall  then  be  in 
rebellion  against  the  United  States  ;  and  the 
fact  that  any  State,  or  the  people  thereof,  shall 
on  that  day  be  in  good  faith  represented  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  by  members 
chosen  thereto  at  elections  wherein  a  majority 
of  the  qualified  voters  of  such  State  shall  have 
participated,  shall  in  the  absence  of  strong 
countervailing  testimony  be  deemed  conclusive 
evidence  that  such  State  and  the  people  thereof 
are  not  then  in  rebellion  against  the  United 
States." 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  by  virtue  of  the 
power  in  me  vested  as  commander-m-chief  of 
the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States,  in 
time  of  actual  armed  rebellion  against  the  au 
thority  and  government  of  the  United  States, 
and  as  a  fit  and  necessary  war  measure  for  sup 
pressing  said  rebellion,  do,  on  this  first  day  of 
January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty -three,  and  in  accord 
ance  with  my  purpose  so  to  do,  publicly  pro 
claimed  for  the  full  period  of  100  days  from  the 
day  first  above  mentioned,  order  and  designate 
as  the  States  and  parts  of  States  wherein  the 
people  thereof,  respectively,  are  this  day  in  re 
bellion  against  the  United  States,  the  follow 
ing,  to  wit  : 

Arkansas,  Texas,  Louisiana  (except  the  par- 


Abraham  Lincoln 

ishes  of  St.  Bernard,  Plaquemmes,  Jefferson, 
St.  John,  St.  Charles,  St.  James,  Ascension, 
Assumption,  Terre  Bonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Mary, 
St.  Martin,  and  Orleans,  including  the  city  of 
New  Orleans),  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Florida, 
Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  and 
Virginia  (except  the  forty-eight  counties  desig 
nated  as  West  Virginia,  and  also  the  counties 
of  Berkeley,  Accomac,  Northampton,  Elizabeth 
City,  York,  Princess  Ann,  and  Norfolk,  includ 
ing  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth),  and 
which  excepted  parts  are  for  the  present  left 
precisely  as  if  this  proclamation  were  not 
issued. 

And  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  for  the  pur 
pose  aforesaid,  I  do  order  and  declare  that  all 
persons  held  as  slaves  within  said  designated 
States  and  parts  of  States  are,  and  hencefor 
ward  shall  be,  free  ;  and  that  the  Executive 
Government  of  the  United  States,  including 
the  military  and  naval  authorities  thereof,  will 
recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  said 
persons. 

And  I  hereby  enjoin  upon  the  people  so  de 
clared  to  be  free  to  abstain  from  all  violence, 
unless  in  necessary  self-defence  ;  and  I  recom 
mend  to  them  that,  in  all  cases  when  allowed, 
they  labor  faithfully  for  reasonable  wages. 

And  I  further  declare  and  make  known  that 
such  persons  of  suitable  condition  will  be  re 
ceived  into  the  armed  service  of  the  United 
States  to  garrison  forts,  positions,  stations,  and 
92 


Emancipation  Proclamation 

other  places,  and  to  man  vessels  of  all  sorts  in 
said  service. 

And  upon  this  act,  sincerely  believed  to  be 
an  act  of  justice,  warranted  by  the  Constitution 
upon  military  necessity,  I  invoke  the  consider 
ate  judgment  of  mankind  and  the  gracious 
favor  of  Almighty  God. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my 
hand,  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States 
to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this 
first  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
*-L<  S'J  sixty-three,  and  of  the  independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America  the 
eighty-seventh. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

By  the  President  :  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  Sec' 
retary  of  State. 


Gettysburg  Address 
November  19,  1863 

[The  national  military  cemetery  at  Gettys 
burg,  Pa.,  was  dedicated  with  solemn  ceremo 
nies  on  November  19,  1863,  as  a  memorial  of 
the  three  days'  battle  fought  in  the  previous 
July,  which  proved  to  be  the  turning-point  of 
the  Civil  War.  The  formal  oration  of  the  day 
was  pronounced  by  Edward  Everett,  but  the 
President  was  asked  to  add  a  word.  .His  biog 
rapher,  Mr.  J.  G.  Nicolay,  has  given  an  inter 
esting  account  of  the  preparation  of  the  address. 
(Century  Magazine,  Vol.  XLVII.)  It  was  de 
livered  without  any  effort  at  oratorical  effect  ; 
but  .its  perfection  of  feeling  and  of  phrase  was 
instantly  and  universally  recognized.  To  have 
composed  the  Gettysburg  address  is  proof 
enough,  were  there  no  other,  of  Lincoln's  place 
among  the  masters  of  English  speech.  His  let 
ter  to  Edward  Everett  acknowledging  the  lat- 
ter's  praise,  and  complimenting  Everett  in  turn, 
is  included  in  this  volume  of  selections.] 

FOURSCORE  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers 
brought  forth  on  this  continent  a  new  nation, 
conceived  in  liberty,  and  dedicated  to  the  propo 
sition  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war, 
testing  whether  that  nation,  or  any  nation  so 
94 


Gettysburg  Address 

conceived  and  so  dedicated,  can  long  endure. 
We  are  met  on  a  great  battle-field  of  that  war. 
We  have  come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of  that  field 
as  a  final  resting-place  for  those  who  here  gave 
their  lives  that  that  nation  might  live.  It  is 
altogether  fitting  and  proper  that  we  should  do 
this. 

But,  in  a  larger  sense,  we  cannot  dedicate — 
we  cannot  consecrate— we  cannot  hallow — this 
ground.  The  brave  men,  living  and  dead,  who 
struggled  here,  have  consecrated  it  far  above 
our  poor  power  to  add  or  detract.  The  world 
will  little  note  nor  long  remember  what  we  say 
here,  but  it  can  never  forest  what  **»«»y  did 
here.  It  is  for  us,  the  living,  rather,  to  be  dedi 
cated  here  to  the  unfinished  work  which  they 
who  fought  here  have  thus  far  so  nobly  ad 
vanced.  It  is  rather  for  us  to  be  here  dedicated 
to  the  great  task  remaining  before  us — that 
from  these  honored  dead  we  take  increased  de 
votion  to  that  cause  for  which  they  gave  the 
last  full  measure  of  devotion  ;  that  we  here 
highly  resolve  that  these  dead  shall  not  have 
died  in  vain  ;  that  this  nation,  under  God,  shall 
have  a  new  birth  of  freedom  ;  and  that  govern 
ment  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  peo 
ple,  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth. 


95 


Speech  to  i66th  Ohio  Regiment 

AtlgUSt  22,   1864 

Soldiers :  I  suppose  you  are  going  home  to 
see  your  families  and  friends.  For  the  services 
you  have  done  in  this  great  struggle  in  which 
we  are  all  engaged,  I  present  you  sincere  thanks 
for  myself  and  the  country. 

I  almost  always  feel  inclined,  when  I  happen 
to  say  anything  to  soldiers,  to  impress  upon 
them,  in  a  few  brief  remarks,  the  importance 
of  success  in  this  contest.  It  is  not  merely  for 
to-day,  but  for  all  time  to  come,  that  we  should 
perpetuate  for  our  children's  children  that  great 
and  free  government  which  we  have  enjoyed 
all  our  lives.  I  beg  you  to  remember  this,  not 
merely  for  my  sake,  but  for  yours.  I  happen, 
temporarily,  to  occupy  this  White  House.  I 
am  a  living  witness  that  any  one  of  your  chil 
dren  may  look  to  come  here  as  my  father's  child 
has.  It  is  in  order  that  each  one  of  you  may 
have,  through  this  free  government  which  we 
have  enjoyed,  an  open  field  and  a  fair  chance 
for  your  industry,  enterprise,  and  intelligence  ; 
that  you  may  all  have  equal  privileges  in  the 
race  of  life,  with  all  its  desirable  human  aspira- 
96 


Speech  to  i66th  Ohio  Regiment 

lions.  It  is  for  this  the  struggle  should  be 
maintained,  that  we  may  not  lose  our  birthright 
— not  only  for  one,  but  for  two  or  three  years. 
The  nation  is  worth  fighting  for,  to  secure  such 
an  inestimable  jewel, 


Response  to  Serenade 

November  10,  1864 

[This  little  speech  was  called  forth  by  the 
news  of  Lincoln's  re-election  as  President.] 

IT  has  long  been  a  grave  question  whether 
any  government,  not  too  strong  for  the  liber 
ties  of  its  people,  can  be  strong  enough  to  main 
tain  its  existence  in  great  emergencies.  On 
this  point  the  present  rebellion  brought  our  re 
public  to  a  severe  test,  and  a  presidential  elec 
tion  occurring  in  regular  course  during  the 
rebellion,  added  not  a  little  to  the  strain. 

If  the  loyal  people  united  were  put  to  the 
utmost  of  their  strength  by  the  rebellion,  must 
they  not  fail  when  divided  and  partially  para 
lyzed  by  a  political  war  among  themselves? 
But  the  election  was  a  necessity.  We  cannot 
have  free  government  without  elections  ;  and 
if  the  rebellion  could  force  us  to  forego  or  post 
pone  a  national  election,  it  might  fairly  claim 
to  have  already  conquered  and  ruined  us.  The 
strife  of  the  election  is  but  human  nature  prac 
tically  applied  to  the  facts  of  the  case.  What 
has  occurred  in  this  case  must  ever  recur  in 
similar  cases.  Human  nature  will  not  change. 
In  any  future  great  national  trial,  compared 
98 


Response  to  Serenade 

with  the  men  of  this,  we  shall  have  as  weak 
and  as  strong,  as  silly  and  as  wise,  as  bad  and 
as  good.  Let  us,  therefore,  study  the  incidents 
of  this  as  philosophy  to  learn  wisdom  from,  and 
none  of  them  as  wrongs  to  be  revenged.  But 
the  election,  along  with  its  incidental  and  un 
desirable  strife,  has  done  good  too.  It  has 
demonstrated  that  a  people's  government  can 
sustain  a  national  election  in  the  midst  of  a 
great  civil  war.  Until  now,  it  has  not  been 
known  to  the  world  that  this  was  a  possibility. 
It  shows,  also,  how  sound  and  how  strong  we 
still  are.  It  shows  that,  even  among  candidates 
of  the  same  party,  he  who  is  most  devoted  to 
the  Union  and  most  opposed  to  treason  can  re 
ceive  most  of  the  people's  votes.  It  shows, 
also,  to  the  extent  yet  known,  that  we  have 
more  men  now  than  we  had  when  the  war  be 
gan.  Gold  is  good  in  its  place,  but  living, 
brave,  patriotic  men  are  better  than  gold. 

But  the  rebellion  continues,  and  now  that  the 
election  is  over,  may  not  all  having  a  common 
interest  reunite  in  a  common  effort  to  save  our 
common  country?  For  my  own  part,  I  have 
striven  and  shall  strive  to  avoid  placing  any 
obstacle  in  the  way.  So  long  as  I  have  been 
here  I  have  not  willingly  planted  a  thorn  in  any 
man's  bosom.  "While  I  am  deeply  sensible  to 
the  high  compliment  of  a  re-election,  and  duly 
grateful,  as  I  trust,  to  Almighty  God  for  having 
directed  my  countrymen  to  a  right  conclusion, 
as  I  think,  for  their  own  good,  it  adds  nothing 
99 


Abraham   Lincoln 

to  my  satisfaction  that  any  other  man  may  be 
disappointed  or  pained  by  the  result. 

May  I  ask  those  who  have  not  differed  with 
me  to  join  with  me  in  this  same  spirit  toward 
those  who  have  ?  And  now  let  me  close  by 
asking  three  hearty  cheers  for  our  brave  sol 
diers  and  seamen  and  their  gallant  and  skilful 
commanders. 


100 


Reply  to   Committee  on  the   Electoral 
Count 

February  9,  1865 

[Lincoln  had  been  renominated  for  the  Presi 
dency  by  the  Republican  Convention  which 
met  in  Baltimore  on  June  7,  1864,  and  was 
elected  on  November  8  by  a  plurality  of 
nearly  half  a  million  in  the  popular  vote.  In 
the  Electoral  College  he  had  212  votes  to  21  for 
McClellan.J 

WITH  deep  gratitude  to  my  countrymen  for 
this  mark  of  their  confidence  ;  with  a  distrust 
of  my  own  ability  to  perform  the  duty  required 
under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  and 
now  rendered  doubly  difficult  by  existing  na 
tional  perils  ;  yet  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the 
strength  of  our  free  government,  and  the  event 
ual  loyalty  of  the  people  to  the  just  principles 
upon  which  it  is  founded,  and  above  all  with  an 
unshaken  faith  in  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  na 
tions,  I  accept  this  trust.  Be  pleased  to  signify 
this  to  the  respective  Houses  of  Congress. 


101 


Second  Inaugural  Address 
March  4,  1865 

["  The  '  Second  Inaugural  '—a  written  com 
position,  though  read  to  the  citizens  from  the 
steps  of  the  Capitol— well  illustrates  our  words. 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  to  tell  his  countrymen  that, 
after  a  four  years'  struggle,  the  war  was  practi 
cally  ended.  The  four  years'  agony,  the  pas 
sion  of  love  which  he  felt  for  his  country,  his 
joy  in  her  salvation,  his  sense  of  tenderness  for 
those  who  fell,  of  pity  mixed  with  sternness  for 
the  men  who  had  deluged  the  land  with  blood 
— all  the  thoughts  these  feelings  inspired  were 
behind  Lincoln  pressing  for  expression.  A 
writer  of  less  power  would  have  been  over 
whelmed.  Lincoln  remained  master  of  the 
emotional  and  intellectual  situation.  In  three 
or  four  hundred  words  that  burn  with  the  heat 
of  their  compression,  he  tells  the  history  of  the 
war  and  reads  its  lesson.  No  nobler  thoughts 
were  ever  conceived.  No  man  ever  found 
words  more  adequate  to  his  desire.  Here  is 
the  whole  tale  of  the  nation's  shame  and  mis 
ery,  of  her  heroic  struggles  to  free  herself  there 
from,  and  of  her  victory.  Had  Lincoln  written 
a  hundred  times  as  much  more,  he  would  not 
have  said  more  fully  what  he  desired  to  say. 
Every  thought  receives  its  complete  expression, 
and  there  is  no  word  employed  which  does  not 
directly  and  manifestly  contribute  to  the  devel- 
102 


Second  Inaugural  Address 

opment  of  the  central  thought." — The  (London) 
Spectator*  May  zd,  1891. 

Compare  also  Lincoln's  letter  to  Thurlow 
Weed  at  the  close  of  this  volume  of  selections.] 

Fellow-countrymen  :  At  this  second  appear 
ing  to  take  the  oath  of  the  presidential  office, 
there  is  less  occasion  for  an  extended  address 
than  there  was  at  the  first.  Then  a  statement, 
somewhat  in  detail,  of  a  course  to  be  pursued, 
seemed  fitting  and  proper.  Now,  at  the  ex 
piration  of  four  years,  during  which  public  dec 
larations  have  been  constantly  called  forth  on 
every  point  and  phase  of  the  great  contest  which 
still  absorbs  the  attention  and  engrosses  the 
energies  of  the  nation,  little  that  is  new  could 
be  presented.  The  progress  of  our  arms,  upon 
which  all  else  chiefly  depends,  is  as  well  known 
to  the  public  as  to  myself  ;  and  it  is,  I  trust, 
reasonably  satisfactory  and  encouraging  to  all. 
With  high  hope  for  the  future,  no  prediction  in 
regard  to  it  is  ventured. 

On  the  occasion  corresponding  to  this  four 
years  ago,  all  thoughts  were  anxiously  directed 
to  an  impending  civil  war.  All  dreaded  it — all 
sought  to  avert  it.  While  the  inaugural  ad 
dress  was  being  delivered  from  this  place,  de 
voted  altogether  to  saving  the  Union  without 
war,  insurgent  agents  were  in  the  city  seeking 
to  destroy  it  without  war — seeking  to  dissolve 
the  Union,  and  divide  effects,  by  negotiation. 
Both  parties  deprecated  war  ;  but  one  of  them 
would  make  war  rather  than  let  the  nation  sur- 
103 


Abraham  Lincoln 

vive  ;  and  the  other  would  accept  war  rather 
than  let  it  perish.     And  the  war  came. 

One-eighth  of  the  whole  population  were  col 
ored  slaves,  not  distributed  generally  over  the 
Union,  but  localized  in  the  Southern  part  of  it. 
These  slaves  constituted  a  peculiar  and  power 
ful  interest.  All  knew  that  this  interest  was, 
somehow,  the  cause  of  the  war.  To  strengthen , 
perpetuate,  and  extend  this  interest  was  the  ob 
ject  for  which  the  insurgents  would  rend  the 
Union,  even  by  war  ;  while  the  government 
claimed  no  right  to  do  more  than  to  restrict  the 
territorial  enlargement  of  it. 

Neither  party  expected  for  the  war  the  mag 
nitude  or  the  duration  which  it  has  already  at 
tained.  Neither  anticipated  that  the  cause  of 
the  conflict  might  cease  with,  or  even  before, 
the  conflict  itself  should  cease.  Each  looked 
for  an  easier  triumph,  and  a  result  less  funda 
mental  and  astounding.  Both  read  the  same 
Bible,  and  pray  to  the  same  God  ;  and  each  in 
vokes  his  aid  against  the  other.  It  may  seem 
strange  that  any  men  should  dare  to  ask  a  just 
God's  assistance  in  wringing  their  bread  from 
the  sweat  of  other  men's  faces  ;  but  let  us  judge 
not,  that  we  be  not  judged.  The  prayers  of 
both  could  not  be  answered — that  of  neither  has 
been  answered  fully. 

The  Almighty  has  his  own  purposes.     "  Woe 

unto  the  world  because  of  offenses  !  for  it  must 

needs  be  that  offenses  come  ;  but  woe  to  that 

man  by  whom  the  offense  cometh."      If  we 

104 


Second  Inaugural  Address 

shall  suppose  that  American  slavery  is  one  of 
those  offenses  which,  in  the  providence  of  God, 
must  needs  come,  but  which,  having  continued 
through  his  appointed  time,  he  now  wills  to  re 
move,  and  that  he  gives  to  both  North  and 
South  this  terrible  war,  as  the  woe  due  to  those 
oy  whom  the  offense  came,  shall  we  discern 
therein  any  departure  from  those  divine  at 
tributes  which  the  believers  in  a  living  God 
always  ascribe  to  him  ?  Fondly  do  we  hope — 
fervently  do  we  pray — that  this  mighty  scourge 
of  war  may  speedily  pass  away.  Yet,  if  God 
wills  that  it  continue  until  all  the  wealth  piled 
by  the  bondman's  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
of  unrequited  toil  shall  be  s  ink,  and  until  every 
drop  of  blood  drawn  with  the  lash  shall  be  paid 
by  another  drawn  with  the  sword,  as  was  said 
three  thousand  years  ago,  so  still  it  must  be 
said,  "  The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and 
righteous  altogether. ' ' 

With  malice  toward  none  ;  with  charity  for 
all  ;  with  firmness  in  the  right,  as  God  gives  us 
to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on  to  finish  the 
work  we  are  in  ;  to  bind  up  the  nation's 
wounds  ;  to  care  for  him  who  shall  have  borne 
the  battle,  and  for  his  widow,  and  his  orphan — 
to  do  all  which  may  achieve  and  cherish  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  among  ourselves,  and  with 
all  nations. 


Letters 


JO? 


To  McClellan 
February  3,  1862 

[General  McClellan  had  succeeded  General 
Scott  on  November  i,  1861,  as  Commander- 
in-Chief  (under  the  President)  of  all  the  armies 
of  the  United  States.  On  January  31,  1862, 
the  President  had  issued  his  "  Special  War  Or 
der  No.  i,"  directing  a  forward  movement  of 
the  Army  of  the  Potomac.  This  order  conflicted 
with  plans  which  McClellan  had  formed,  and 
he  remonstrated.  Lincoln's  reply  is  a  good 
illustration  of  his  power  of  compact  statement, 
as  well  as  of  his  mastery  of  the  military  situa 
tion.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  February  3,  1862. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  MCCLELLAN  : 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  You  and  I  have  distinct  and 
different  plans  for  a  movement  of  the  Army  of 
the  Potomac — yours  to  be  down  the  Chesapeake, 
up  the  Rappahannock  to  Urbana,  and  across 
land  to  the  terminus  of  the  railroad  on  the  York 
River  ;  mine  to  move  directly  to  a  point  on  the 
railroad  southwest  of  Manassas. 

If  you  will  give  me  satisfactory  answers  to 
the  following  questions,  I  shall  gladly  yield  my 
plan  to  yours. 

First,  Does  not  your  plan  involve  a  greatly 
109 


Abraham  Lincoln 

larger  expenditure  of   time   and  money  than 
mine  ? 

Second.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  certain  by 
your  plan  than  mine  ? 

Third.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  valuable 
by  your  plan  than  mine  ? 

Fourth.  In  fact,  would  it  not  be  less  valuable 
in  this,  that  it  would  break  no  great  line  of  the 
enemy's  communications,  while  mine  would  ? 

Fifth.  In  case  of  disaster,  would  not  a  retreat 
be  more  difficult  by  your  plan  than  mine  ? 
Yours  truly, 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

MAJOR-GENERAL  MCCLELLAN. 


no 


To  Seward 
June  28,  1862 

[This  letter  was  written  to  W.  H.  Seward, 
the  Secretary  of  State,  shortly  after  the  Union 
victories  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  and  upon 
the  Mississippi  River,  in  the  spring  of  1862.] 

Executive  Mansion,  June  28,  1862. 
HON.  W.  H.  SEWARD  : 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  My  view  of  the  present  condi 
tion  of  the  war  is  about  as  follows  : 

The  evacuation  of  Corinth  and  our  delay  by 
the  flood  in  the  Chickahominy  have  enabled  the 
enemy  to  concentrate  too  much  force  in  Rich 
mond  for  McClellan  to  successfully  attack.  In 
fact  there  soon  will  be  no  substantial  rebel 
force  anywhere  else.  But  if  we  send  all  the 
force  from  here  to  McClellan,  the  enemy  will, 
before  •we  can  know  of  it,  send  a  force  from 
Richmond  and  take  Washington.  Or  if  a  large 
part  of  the  western  army  be  brought  here  to 
McClellan,  they  will  let  us  have  Richmond,  and 
retake  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  etc. 
What  should  be  done  is  to  hold  what  we  have 
in  the  West,  open  the  Mississippi,  and  take 
Chattanooga  and  East  Tennessee  without  more. 
A  reasonable  force  should  in  every  event  be 
in 


Abraham   Lincoln 

kept  about  Washington  for  its  protection. 
Then  let  the  country  give  us  a  hundred  thou 
sand  new  troops  in  the  shortest  possible  time, 
which,  added  to  McClellan  directly  or  indirectly, 
will  take  Richmond  without  endangering  any 
other  place  which  we  now  hold,  and  will  sub 
stantially  end  the  war.  I  expect  to  maintain 
this  contest  until  successful,  or  till  I  die,  or  am 
conquered,  or  my  term  expires,  or  Congress  or 
the  country  forsake  me  ;  and  I  would  publicly 
appeal  to  the  country  for  this  new  force  were 
it  not  that  I  fear  a  general  panic  and  stampede 
would  follow,  so  hard  it  is  to  have  a  thing  un 
derstood  as  it  really  is.  I  think  the  new  force 
should  be  all,  or  nearly  all,  infantry,  principally 
because  such  can  be  raised  most  cheaply  and 
quickly. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


112 


To  Greeley 

AllgUSt  22,   1862 

[Horace  Greeley,  the  famous  editor  of  the 
New  York  Tribune,  though  an  ardent  opponent 
of  slavery,  was  a  constant  critic  of  Lincoln's 
policy,  and  indeed  opposed  his  renomination 
for  the  Presidency.  His  erratic  editorials  con 
cerning  the  Administration  were  a  continual 
source  of  anxiety  to  Lincoln.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  August  22,  1862. 
HON.  HORACE  GREELEY  : 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  just  read  yours  of  the  igth, 
addressed  to  myself  through  the  New  York 
Tribune.  If  there  be  in  it  any  statements  or 
assumptions  of  fact  which  I  may  know  to  be 
erroneous,  I  do  not,  now  and  here,  controvert 
them.  If  there  be  in  it  any  inferences  which  I 
may  believe  to  be  falsely  drawn,  I  do  not,  now 
and  here,  argue  against  them.  If  there  be  per 
ceptible  in  it  an  impatient  and  dictatorial  tone, 
I  waive  it  in  deference  to  an  old  friend  whose 
heart  I  have  always  supposed  to  be  right. 

As  to  the  policy  I  "  seem  to  be  pursuing,"  as 
you  say,  I  have  not  meant  to  leave  any  one  in 
doubt. 

I  would  save  the  Union.  I  would  save  it  the 
shortest  way  under  the  Constitution.  The 


Abraham  Lincoln 

sooner  the  national  authority  can  be  restored, 
the  nearer  the  Union  will  be  "  the  Union  as  it 
was."  If  there  be  those  who  would  not  save 
the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same  time 
save  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  If 
there  be  those  who  would  not  save  the  Union 
unless  they  could  at  the  same  time  destroy 
slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  My  para 
mount  object  in  this  struggle  is  to  save  the 
Union,  and  is  not  either  to  save  or  to  destroy 
slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union  without 
freeing  any  slave,  I  would  do  it  ;  and  if  I  could 
save  it  by  freeing  all  the  slaves,  I  would  do  it  ; 
and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  some  and  leav 
ing  others  alone,  I  would  also  do  that.  What  I 
do  about  slavery  and  the  colored  race,  I  do  be 
cause  I  believe  it  helps  to  save  the  Union  ;  and 
what  I  forbear,  I  forbear  because  1  do  not  be 
lieve  it  would  help  to  save  the  Union.  I  shall 
do  less  whenever  I  shall  believe  what  I  am 
doing  hurts  the  cause,  and  I  shall  do  more  when 
ever  I  shall  believe  doing  more  will  help  the 
cause.  I  shall  try  to  correct  errors  when  shown 
to  be  errors,  and  I  shall  adopt  new  views  so 
fast  as  they  shall  appear  to  be  true  views. 

I  have  here  stated  my  purpose  according  to 
my  view  of  official  duty  ;  and  I  intend  no  modi 
fication  of  my  oft-expressed  personal  wish  that 
all  men  everywhere  could  be  free. 

Yours, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


114 


To  the  Workingmen  of  Manchester 
January  19,  1863 

[The  blockade  of  Confederate  ports  during 
the  war  was  naturally  a  severe  blow  to  the  Eng 
lish  manufacturing  centres  like  Manchester, 
which  had  depended  upon  the  Southern  States 
for  their  supply  of  cotton.  But  the  working 
classes  of  England,  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
upper  classes,  displayed  strong  Union  sympa 
thies  throughout  the  struggle.  An  address 
from  the  Manchester  workingmen  called  forth 
this  admirable  reply  from  the  President.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  January  ig,  1863. 

To  THE  WORKINGMEN  OF  MANCHESTER  :  I  have 
the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  ad 
dress  and  resolutions  which  you  sent  me  on  the 
eve  of  the  new  year.  When  I  came,  on  the 
4th  of  March,  1861,  through  a  free  and  constitu 
tional  election  to  preside  in  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  the  country  was  found  at  the 
verge  of  civil  war.  Whatever  might  have  been 
the  cause,  or  whosesoever  the  fault,  one  duty, 
paramount  to  all  others,  was  before  me,  namely, 
to  maintain  and  preserve  at  once  the  Constitu 
tion  and  the  integrity  of  the  Federal  Republic. 
A  conscientious  purpose  to  perform  this  duty  is 
the  key  to  all  the  measures  of  administration 
which  have  been  and  to  all  which  will  hereafter 
be  pursued.  Under  our  frame  of  government 


Abraham  Lincoln 

and  my  official  oath,  I  could  not  depart  from 
this  purpose  if  I  would.  It  is  not  always  in  the 
power  of  governments  to  enlarge  or  restrict  the 
scope  of  moral  results  which  follow  the  policies 
that  they  may  deem  it  necessary  for  the  public 
safety  from  time  to  time  to  adopt. 

I  have  understood  well  that  the  duty  of  self- 
preservation  rests  solely  with  the  American  peo 
ple  ;  but  I  have  at  the  same  time  been  aware 
that  favor  or  disfavor  of  foreign  nations  might 
have  a  material  influence  in  enlarging  or  pro 
longing  the  struggle  with  disloyal  men  in  which 
the  country  is  engaged.  A  fair  examination  of 
history  has  served  to  authorize  a  belief  that  the 
past  actions  and  influences  of  the  United  States 
were  generally  regarded  as  having  been  bene 
ficial  toward  mankind.  I  have,  therefore,  reck 
oned  upon  the  forbearance  of  nations.  Circum 
stances — to  some  of  which  you  kindly  allude— 
induce  me  especially  to  expect  that  if  justice 
and  good  faith  should  be  practised  by  the 
United  States,  they  would  encounter  no  hostile 
influence  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  It  is 
now  a  pleasant  duty  to  acknowledge  the  dem 
onstration  you  have  given  of  your  desire  that  a 
spirit  of  amity  and  peace  toward  this  country 
may  prevail  in  the  councils  of  your  Queen,  who 
is  respected  and  esteemed  in  your  own  country 
only  more  than  she  is  by  the  kindred  nation 
which  has  its  home  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

I  know  and  deeply  deplore  the  sufferings 
which  the  workingmen  at  Manchester,  and  in 
116 


To  Workingmen  of  Manchester 

all  Europe,  are  called  to  endure  in  this  crisis. 
It  has  been  often  and  studiously  represented 
that  the  attempt  to  overthrow  this  government, 
which  was  built  upon  the  foundation  of  human 
rights,  and  to  substitute  for  it  one  which  should 
rest  exclusively  on  the  basis  of  human  slavery, 
was  likely  to  obtain  the  favor  of  Europe. 
Through  the  action  of  our  disloyal  citizens,  the 
workingmen  of  Europe  have  been  subjected  to 
severe  trials,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  their 
sanction  to  that  attempt.  Under  the  circum 
stances,  I  cannot  but  regard  your  decisive  utter 
ances  upon  the  question  as  an  instance  of 
sublime  Christian  heroism  which  has  not  been 
surpassed  in  any  age  or  in  any  country.  It  is 
indeed  an  energetic  and  reinspiring  assurance 
of  the  inherent  power  of  truth,  and  of  the  ulti 
mate  and  universal  triumph  of  justice,  human 
ity,  and  freedom.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  sen 
timents  you  have  expressed  will  be  sustained 
by  your  great  nation  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  assuring  you  that  they 
will  excite  admiration,  esteem,  and  the  most  re 
ciprocal  feelings  of  friendship  among  the  Ameri 
can  people.  I  hail  this  interchange  of  senti 
ment,  therefore,  as  an  augury  that  whatever 
else  may  happen,  whatever  misfortune  may  be 
fall  your  country  or  my  own,  the  peace  and 
friendship  which  now  exist  between  the  two 
nations  will  be,  as  it  shall  be  my  desire  to  make 
them,  perpetual. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 
117 


To  Hooker 

January  26,  1863 

[This  letter  to  General  Joseph  Hooker,  ap 
pointing  him  the  successor  of  General  Burnside 
as  commander  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac,  is 
one  of  Lincoln's  most  characteristic  utterances 
—frank,  kind,  and  gravely  ironical.  Notice  the 
phrase,  "  I  will  risk  the  dictatorship."] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  January  26,  1863. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  HOOKER  : 

GENERAL  :  I  have  placed  you  at  the  head  of 
the  Army  of  the  Potomac.  Of  course  I  have 
done  this  upon  what  appear  to  me  to  be  suffi 
cient  reasons,  and  yet  I  think  it  best  for  you  to 
know  that  there  are  some  things  in  regard  to 
which  I  am  not  quite  satisfied  with  you.  I  be 
lieve  you  to  be  a  brave  and  skilful  soldier, 
which  of  course  I  like.  I  also  believe  you  do 
not  mix  politics  with  your  profession,  in  which 
you  are  right.  You  have  confidence  in  your 
self,  which  is  a  valuable  if  not  an  indispensable 
quality.  You  are  ambitious,  which,  within  rea 
sonable  bounds,  does  good  rather  than  harm  ; 
but  I  think  that  during  General  Burnside' s 
command  of  the  army  you  have  taken  counsel 
of  your  ambition  and  thwarted  him  as  much  as 
you  could,  in  which  you  did  a  great  wrong  to 


To  Hooker 

the  country  and  to  a  most  meritorious  and  hon 
orable  brother  officer.  I  have  heard,  in  such  a 
way  as  to  believe  it,  of  your  recently  saying 
that  both  the  army  and  the  government  needed 
a  dictator.  Of  course  it  was  not  for  this,  but  in 
spite  of  it,  that  I  have  given  you  the  command. 
Only  those  generals  who  gain  successes  can  set 
up  dictators.  What  I  now  ask  of  you  is  mili 
tary  success,  and  I  will  risk  the  dictatorship. 
The  government  will  support  you  to  the  utmost 
of  its  ability,  which  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  it  has  done  and  will  do  for  all  commanders. 
I  much  fear  that  the  spirit  which  you  have  aided 
to  infuse  into  the  army,  of  criticising  their  com 
mander  and  withholding  confidence  from  him, 
will  now  turn  upon  you.  I  shall  assist  you  as 
far  as  I  can  to  put  it  down.  Neither  you  nor 
Napoleon,  if  he  were  alive  again,  could  get  any 
good  out  of  an  army  while  such  a  spirit  prevails 
in  it  ;  and  now  beware  of  rashness.  Beware  of 
rashness,  but  with  energy  and  sleepless  vigi 
lance  go  forward  and  give  us  victories. 
Yours  very  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


119 


To  Burnside 

July  27,  1863 

[This  telegram  is  noticeable  for  its  brief  but 
comprehensive  description  of  General  Grant.] 

War  Department,  Washington,  July  27,  1863. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  BURNSIDE,  Cincinnati,  Ohio  : 

Let  me  explain.  In  General  Grant's  first  de 
spatch  after  the  fall  of  Vicksburg,  he  said, 
among  other  things,  he  would  send  the  Ninth 
Corps  to  you.  Thinking  it  would  be  pleasant 
to  you,  I  asked  the  Secretary  of  War  to  tele 
graph  you  the  news.  For  some  reasons  never 
mentioned  to  us  by  General  Grant,  they  have 
not  been  sent,  though  we  have  seen  outside  in 
timations  that  they  took  part  in  the  expedition 
against  Jackson.  General  Grant  is  a  copious 
worker  and  fighter,  but  a  very  meager  writer 
or  telegrapher.  No  doubt  he  changed  his  pur 
pose  in  regard  to  the  Ninth  Corps  for  some 
sufficient  reason,  but  has  forgotten  to  notify  us 
of  it. 

A.  LINCOLN. 


120 


To  Edward  Everett 
November  20,  1863 

[See  the  note  prefixed  to  .Lincoln's  Gettys 
burg  address.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  November  20,  1863. 
HON.  EDWARD  EVERETT  : 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  Your  kind  note  of  to-day  is  re 
ceived.  In  our  respective  parts  yesterday,  you 
could  not  have  been  excused  to  make  a  short 
address,  nor  I  a  long  one.  I  am  pleased  to  know 
that,  in  your  judgment,  the  little  I  did  say  was 
not  entirely  a  failure.  Of  course  I  knew  Mr. 
Everett  would  not  fail,  and  yet,  while  the  whole 
discourse  was  eminently  satisfactory,  and  will 
be  of  great  value,  there  were  passages  in  it  which 
transcended  my  expectations.  The  point  made 
against  the  theory  of  the  General  Government 
being  only  an  agency  whose  principals  are  the 
States,  was  new  to  me,  and,  as  I  think,  is  one 
of  the  best  arguments  for  the  national  suprem 
acy.  The  tribute  to  our  noble  women  for  their 
angel  ministering  to  the  suffering  soldiers  sur 
passes  in  its  way,  as  do  the  subjects  of  it,  what 
ever  has  gone  before. 

Our  sick  boy,  for  whom  you  kindly  inquire, 
we  hope  is  past  the  worst. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

121 


To  Grant 

April  30,  1864 

[The  spring  campaign  of  1864  marked  "  the 
beginning  of  the  end"  of  the  Rebellion.  This 
letter  is  one  of  many  proofs  of  Lincoln's  abso 
lute  confidence  in  Grant's  generalship.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  April  30,  1864. 
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL  GRANT  : 

Not  expecting  to  see  you  again  before  the 
spring  campaign  opens,  I  wish  to  express  in 
this  way  my  entire  satisfaction  with  what  you 
have  done  up  to  this  time,  so  far  as  I  under 
stand  it.  The  particulars  of  your  plans  I  neither 
know  nor  seek  to  know.  You  are  vigilant  and 
self-reliant  ;  and,  pleased  with  this,  I  wish  not 
to  obtrude  any  constraints  or  restraints  upon 
you.  While  I  am  very  anxious  that  any  great 
disaster  or  capture  of  our  men  in  great  numbers 
shall  be  avoided,  I  know  these  points  are  less 
likely  to  escape  your  attention  than  they  would 
be  mine.  If  there  is  anything  wanting  which 
is  within  my  power  to  give,  do  not  fail  to  let 
me  know  it.  And  now,  w;th  a  brave  army  and 
a  just  cause,  may  God  sustain  you. 
Yours  very  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN. 
122 


To  Mrs.  Bixby 

November  21,  1864 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  November  21,  1864. 
MRS.  BIXBY,  Boston,  Massachusetts  : 

DEAR  MADAM  :  I  have  been  shown  in  the  files 
of  the  War  Department  a  statement  of  the  Ad 
jutant-General  of  Massachusetts  that  you  are 
the  mother  of  five  sons  who  have  died  glori 
ously  on  the  field  of  battle.  I  feel  how  weak 
and  fruitless  must  be  any  words  of  mine  which 
should  attempt  to  beguile  you  from  the  grief  of 
a  loss  so  overwhelming.  But  I  cannot  refrain 
from  tendering  to  you  the  consolation  that  may 
be  found  in  the  thanks  of  the  Republic  they 
died  to  save.  I  pray  that  our  heavenly  Father 
may  assuage  the  anguish  of  your  bereavement, 
and  leave  you  only  the  cherished  memory  of 
the  loved  and  lost,  and  the  solemn  pride  that 
must  be  yours  to  have  laid  so  costly  a  sacrifice 
upon  the  altar  of  freedom. 

Yours  very  sincerely  and  respectfully, 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 


123 


To  Thurlow  Weed 

March  15,  1865 

[This  most  interesting  letter,  written  a  month 
before  Lincoln's  assassination,  should  be  read 
in  connection  with  the  second  inaugural  ad 
dress.] 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  March  15,  1865. 
DEAR  MR.  WEED  : 

Every  one  likes  a  compliment.  Thank  you 
for  yours  on  my  little  notification  speech  and  on 
the  recent  inaugural  address.  I  expect  the  lat 
ter  to  wear  as  well  as — perhaps  better  than — 
anything  I  have  produced  ;  but  I  believe  it  is 
not  immediately  popular.  Men  are  not  flattered 
by  being  shown  that  there  has  been  a  differ 
ence  of  purpose  between  the  Almighty  and 
them.  To  deny  it,  however,  in  this  case,  is  to 
deny  that  there  is  a  God  governing  the  world. 
It  is  a  truth  which  I  thought  needed  to  be  told, 
and,  as  whatever  of  humiliation  there  is  in  it 
falls  most  directly  on  myself,  1  thought  others 
might  afford  for  me  to  tell  it. 

Truly  yours, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


124 


Appendix 


125 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech"* 

THE  Republican  party  was  first  organized  in 
Illinois  on  May  29th,  1856,  at  a  State  conven 
tion  held  in  Bloom ington.  It  was  here  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  made  the  speech  which  defi 
nitely  severed  his  relations  with  the  Whigs  and 
allied  him  to  the  new  organization.  For  two 
years  previous  he  had  been  slowly  working 
toward  this  change.  The  failure  of  his  political 
ambitions  in  the  summer  of  .^849  had  decided 
him  henceforth  LO  devote  himself  to  the  law. 
For  nearly  six  years  he  had  kept  this  resolution. 
Then,  in  the  spring  of  1854,  the  passage  by 
Congress  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  repealing 
the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  and  establish 
ing  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  had  so 
aroused  him  that  he  flung  himself  again  into 
politics. 

Elected  to  the  legislature  in  the  fall  of  1854, 
Lincoln  had  resigned  in  order  to  contest  the 
vacant  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate.  He 
showed  in  this  campaign  how  much  more  im 
portant  he  considered  it  to  insure  legislation 
against  slavery  extension  than  to  elect  one  of 
his  o\vn  party  ;  for  when  he  found  that  the  bal- 

*  Copyright.  1896,  by  Sarah  A.  Whitney. 
127 


Abraham  Lincoln 

•ance  of  po\ver  in  the  legislature  which  was  to 
elect  the  senator  was  held  by  five  anti-Nebraska 
Democrats,  he  persuaded  his  supporters  to  go 
over  to  the  five,  whom  he  knew  to  be  of  the 
same  mind  as  himself  in  regard  to  the  extension 
of  slavery,  rather  than  to  allow  a  combination 
on  a  man  who  would  oppose  the  measure  but 
lukewarmly. 

When,  in  the  spring  of  1856,  the  Illinois  op 
ponents  of  slavery  extension  had  sufficient 
strength  to  form  another  branch  of  the  now 
rapidly  growing  Republican  party,  Lincoln  was 
ready  to  join  them.  The  speech  he  made  at 
the  first  convention  was  long  known  in  Illinois 
as  "  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech,"  a  name  given  it 
because  the  reporters  were  so  carried  away  by 
his  eloquence  that  they  forgot  to  take  notes  and 
could  give  no  report  to  their  papers.  As  Lin 
coln  himself  refused  to  try  to  write  it  out,  it 
was  supposed  to  have  been,  in  fact,  a  "lost 
speech." 

It  seems,  however,  that  though  the  reporters, 
tinder  the  effect  of  Lincoln's  eloquence,  all  lost 
their  heads,  there  was  at  least  one  auditor  who 
had  enough  control  to  pursue  his  usual  habit  of 
making  notes  of  the  speeches  he  heard.  This 
was  a  young  lawyer  on  the  same  circuit  as  Lin 
coln,  Mr.  H.  C.  Whitney.  For  some  three 
weeks  before  the  convention,  Lincoln  and  Whit 
ney  had  been  attending  court  at  Danville. 
They  had  discussed  the  political  situation  in  the 
State  carefully,  and  to  Whitney,  Lincoln  had 
128 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

stated  his  convictions  and  determinations. 
Knowing  as  he  did  that  Lincoln  had  not  writ 
ten  out  his  speech,  Whitney  went  to  the  con 
vention  intending  to  take  notes.  Fortunately, 
he  had  a  cool  enough  head  to  keep  to  his  pur 
pose.  These  notes  Whitney  kept  for  many 
years,  always  intending  to  write  them  out,  but 
never  attending  to  it,  until  in  1896  McClure's 
Magazine  learned  that  he  had  them,  and  per 
suaded  him  to  carry  out  his  intention.  Mr. 
Whitney  does  not  claim  that  he  has  made  a  per 
fect  report.  He  does  claim,  however,  that  the 
argument  is  correct,  and  that  in  many  cases  the 
expressions  are  exact. 

The  speech  has  been  submitted  to  several  of 
those  who  were  at  the  Bloomington  convention, 
among  others  to  Mr.  Joseph  Medill,  editor  of 
the  Chicago  Tribune,  who  says  : 

Mr.   Medill's  Letter 
{Slightly  condensed) 

Chicago,  May  15,  i8g6. 

EDITOR  MCCLURE'S  MAGAZINE, 

NEW  YORK  CITY  : 

DEAR  SIR  :  You  invited  my  attention  recently 
to  H.  C.  Whitney's  report  of  the  great  radical 
"  anti-Nebraska"  speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  deliv 
ered  in  Bloomington,  May  29th,  1856,  before 
the  first  Republican  State  Convention  of  Illinois ; 
and,  as  I  was  present  as  a  delegate  and  heard 
it,  you  ask  me  to  state  how  accurately,  accord- 
129 


Abraham  Lincoln 

ing  to  my  best  recollection,  it  is  reproduced  in 
this  report. 

I  have  carefully  and  reflectively  read  it,  and 
taking  into  account  that  Mr.  Whitney  did  not 
take  down  the  speech  stenographically,  but 
only  took  notes,  and  afterward  wrote  them  out 
in  full,  he  has  reproduced  with  remarkable  ac 
curacy  what  Mr.  Lincoln  said,  largely  in  his 
identical  language  and  partly  in  synonymous 
terms.  The  report  is  close  enough  in  thought 
and  word  to  recall  the  wonderful  speech  deliv 
ered  forty  years  ago  with  vivid  freshness.  No 
one  was  expecting  a  great  speech  at  the  time. 
We  all  knew  that  he  could  say  something  worthy 
of  the  occasion,  but  nobody  anticipated  such  a 
Demosthenean  outburst  of  oratory.  There  was 
great  political  excitement  at  the  time  in  Illinois 
and  all  over  the  old  Northwest,  growing  out  of 
the  efforts  of  the  South  to  introduce  slavery  into 
Kansas  and  Nebraska.  The  free-soil  men  were 
highly  wrought  up  in  opposition,  and  Mr.  Lin 
coln  partook  of  their  feelings. 

I  am  unable  to  point  out  those  sentences  and 
parts  of  the  reported  speech  which  vary  most  in 
phraseology  from  the  precise  language  he  used, 
because  there  is  an  approximation  of  his  words 
in  every  part  of  it.  The  ideas  uttered  are  all 
there.  The  sequence  of  argument  is  accurately 
given.  The  invectives  hurled  at  pro-slavery 
aggression  are  not  exaggerated  in  the  report  of 
the  speech.  Some  portions  of  the  argument 
citing  pro-slavery  aggressions  seem  rather  more 
130 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

elaborate  than  he  delivered  ;  but  he  was  speak 
ing  under  a  high  degree  of  excitement,  and  the 
convention  was  in  a  responsive  mood,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  be  certain  about  it.  The  least 
that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  Whitney  report, 
not  being  shorthand,  is  yet  a  remarkably  good 
one,  and  is  the  only  one  in  existence  that  repro 
duces  the  speech. 

During  all  the  preceding  year  the  public  mind 
of  the  West  had  been  lashed  into  a  high  state 
of  commotion  over  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  the  year  before,  which  had  ex 
cluded  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  all  terri 
tory  north  of  36.30  degrees.  Taking  advantage 
of  the  repeal,  the  slaveholders  of  Missouri  and 
other  slave  States,  aided  by  the  administration 
of  Franklin  Pierce,  were  striving  to  convert 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  into  slave  States.  This 
bad  work  was  carried  on  actively  in  the  spring 
of  1856.  Many  houses  of  the  free-State  men  of 
the  new  city  of  Lawrence,  including  their  hotel, 
were  burnt.  Printing-offices  were  destroyed  ; 
store  goods  were  carried  off  ;  horses  and  cattle 
were  stolen  ;  sharp  fights  were  taking  place  ; 
men  were  being  killed,  and  civil  war  was  rag 
ing  in  "  bleeding  Kansas." 

While  this  state  of  things  was  going  on,  the 
first  State  Republican  Convention  ever  held  in 
Illinois  assembled  in  Bloomington,  May  29th, 
1856.  It  was  composed  of  Abolitionists,  Free- 
Soil  Whigs,  and  "  Anti-Nebraska"  Democrats. 
Owen  Lovejoy  embodied  the  first  named,  Abra- 


Abraham   Lincoln 

ham  Lincoln  and  John  M.  Palmer,  the  second 
and  third  elements  ;  the  whole  united,  made 
the  new  Republican  party. 

At  this  Bloomington  Republican  convention 
delegates  were  appointed  who  voted  to  nomi 
nate  Fremont  for  President.  Abraham  Lincoln 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  State  electoral 
ticket,  and  Colonel  Bissell  (of  the  Mexican  War) 
was  nominated  for  Governor,  and  free-soil  reso 
lutions  were  passed.  Mr.  John  M.  Palmer  pre 
sided  and  made  a  stirring  free-soil  speech. 

Mr.  Emery,  a  "free-State"  man  just  from 
"bleeding  Kansas,"  told  of  the  "border  ruffian" 
raids  from  Missouri  upon  the  free-State  settlers 
in  Kansas  :  the  burnings,  robberies,  and  mur 
ders  they  were  then  committing  ;  and  asked  for 
help  to  repel  them.  When  he  finished,  Lincoln 
was  vociferously  called  for  from  all  parts  of 
Major's  large  hall.  He  came  forward  and  took 
the  platform  beside  the  presiding  officer.  At 
first  his  voice  was  shrill  and  hesitating.  There 
was  a  curious  introspective  look  in  his  eyes, 
which  lasted  for  a  few  moments.  Then  his 
voice  began  to  move  steadily  and  smoothly  for 
ward,  and  the  modulations  were  under  perfect 
control  from  thenceforward  to  the  finish.  He 
warmed  up  as  he  went  on,  and  spoke  more  rap 
idly  ;  he  looked  a  foot  taller  as  he  straightened 
himself  to  his  full  height,  and  his  eyes  flashed 
fire  ;  his  countenance  became  wrapped  in  in 
tense  emotion  ;  he  rushed  along  like  a  thunder 
storm.  He  prophesied  war  as  the  outcome  of 
132 


"Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

these  aggressions,  and  poured  forth  hot  denun 
ciations  upon  the  slave  power.  The  convention 
was  kept  in  an  uproar,  applauding  and  cheer 
ing  and  stamping  ;  and  this  reacted  on  the 
speaker,  and  gave  him  a  tongue  of  fire.  The 
thrilling  scene  in  that  old  Bloomington  hall 
forty  years  ago  arises  in  my  mind  as  vividly  as 
the  day  after  its  enactment. 

There  stood  Lincoln  in  the  forefront,  erect, 
tall,  and  majestic  in  appearance,  hurling  thun 
derbolts  at  the  foes  of  freedom,  while  the  great 
convention  roared  its  endorsement  !  I  never 
witnessed  such  a  scene  before  or  since.  As  he 
described  the  aims  and  aggressions  of  the  un 
appeasable  slaveholders  and  the  servility  of 
their  Northern  allies  as  illustrated  by  the  per 
fidious  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  two 
years  previously,  and  their  grasping  after  the 
rich  prairies  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  to  blight 
them  with  slavery  and  to  deprive  free  labor  of 
this  rich  inheritance,  and  exhorted  the  friends 
of  freedom  to  resist  them  to  the  death,  the  con 
vention  went  fairly  wild.  It  paralleled  or  ex 
ceeded  the  scene  in  the  Revolutionary  Virginia 
convention  of  eighty-one  years  before,  when 
Patrick  Henry  invoked  death  if  liberty  could 
not  be  preserved,  and  said,  ' '  After  all  we  must 
fight."  Strange,  too,  that  this  same  man  re 
ceived  death  a  few  years  afterward  while  con 
ferring  freedom  on  the  slave  race  and  preserv 
ing  the  American  Union  from  dismemberment. 

While  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  write  out  even  a 


Abraham  Lincoln 

memorandum  of  his  Bloomington  speech  before 
hand,  neither  was  it  extemporary.  He  intend 
ed  days  before  to  make  it,  and  conned  it  over 
in  his  mind  in  outline,  and  gathered  his  facts, 
and  arranged  his  arguments  in  regular  order, 
and  trusted  to  the  inspiration  of  the  occasion  to 
furnish  him  the  diction  with  which  to  clothe  the 
skeleton  of  his  great  oration.  It  is  difficult  to 
name  any  speech  by  another  orator  delivered 
on  the  same  subject  about  that  time  or  subse 
quently  that  equalled  it — not  excepting  those 
made  by  Sumner,  Seward,  or  Chase — in  strength 
of  argument  or  dramatic  power. 

It  was  my  journalistic  duty,  though  a  dele 
gate  to  the  convention,  to  make  a  longhand  re 
port  of  the  speeches  delivered,  for  the  Chicago 
Tribune.  I  did  make  a  few  paragraphs  of  re 
port  of  what  Lincoln  said  in  the  first  eight  or 
ten  minutes  ;  but  I  became  so  absorbed  in  his 
magnetic  oratory  that  I  forgot  myself  and 
ceased  to  take  notes,  and  joined  with  the  con 
vention  in  cheering  and  stamping  and  clapping 
to  the  end  of  his  speech.  I  well  remember  that 
after  Lincoln  had  sat  down  and  calm  had  suc 
ceeded  the  tempest,  I  waked  out  of  a  sort  of 
hypnotic  trance,  and  then  thought  of  my  report 
for  the  Tribitne.  There  was  nothing  written 
but  an  abbreviated  introduction.  It  was  some 
sort  of  satisfaction  to  find  that  I  had  not  been 
"  scooped,"  as  all  the  newspaper  men  pres 
ent  had  been  equally  carried  away  by  the 
excitement  caused  by  the  wonderful  oration, 
134 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

and  had  made  no  report  or  sketch  of  the 
speech. 

It  was  fortunate,  however,  that  a  cool-nerved 
young  lawyer  and  ardent  friend  of  Lincoln's 
who  was  present,  with  nimble  fingers  took 
down  so  much  of  the  exact  words  as  they  fell 
from  the  great  orator's  lips,  that  he  was  after 
ward  able  to  reproduce  the  speech  almost  iden 
tically  as  it  was  uttered,  and  has  thus  saved  it 
to  posterity. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  strongly  urged  by  party 
friends  to  write  out  his  speech,  to  be  used  as  a 
campaign  document  for  the  Fremont  Presiden 
tial  contest  of  that  year  ;  but  he  declared  that 
4 '  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  recall  the 
language  he  used  on  that  occasion,  as  he  had 
spoken  under  some  excitement. ' ' 

My  belief  is  that,  after  Mr.  Lincoln  cooled 
down,  he  was  rather  pleased  that  his  speech 
had  not  been  reported,  as  it  was  too  radical  in 
expression  on  the  slavery  question  for  the  diges 
tion  of  central  and  southern  Illinois  at  that  time, 
and  that  he  preferred  to  let  it  stand  as  a  remem 
brance  in  the  minds  of  his  audience.  But  be 
that  as  it  may,  the  effect  of  it  was  such  on  his 
hearers  that  he  bounded  to  the  leadership  of  the 
new  Republican  party  of  Illinois,  and  no  man 
afterward  ever  thought  of  disputing  that  po 
sition  with  him.  On  that  occasion  he  planted 
the  seed  which  germinated  into  a  Presidential 
candidacy,  and  that  gave  him  the  nomination 
over  Seward  at  the  Chicago  Convention  of  1860. 
135 


Abraham   Lincoln 

which  placed  him  in  the  Presidential  chair, 
there  to  complete  his  predestined  work  of  de 
stroying  slavery  and  making  freedom  univer 
sal,  but  yielding  his  life  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
glorious  deeds. 

I  am,  very  respectfully  yours, 

JOSEPH  MEDILL. 

Mr.   Lincoln's  Speech 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  :  I  was  over 
at  [cries  of  "Platform!"  "Take  the  plat 
form  !"] — I  say,  that  while  I  was  at  Danville 
Court,  some  of  our  friends  of  anti-Nebraska  got 
together  in  Springfield  and  elected  me  as  one 
delegate  to  represent  old  Sangamon  with  them 
in  this  convention,  and  I  am  here  certainly  as  a 
sympathizer  in  this  movement  and  by  virtue  of 
that  meeting  and  selection.  But  we  can  hardly 
be  called  delegates  strictly,  inasmuch  as,  prop 
erly  speaking,  we  represent  nobody  but  our 
selves.  I  think  it  altogether  fair  to  say  that  we 
have  no  anti-Nebraska  party  in  Sangamon, 
although  there  is  a  good  deal  of  anti- Nebraska 
feeling  there  ;  but  I  say  for  myself,  and  I  think 
I  may  speak  also  for  my  colleagues,  that  we 
who  are  here  fully  approve  of  the  platform  and 
of  all  that  has  been  done  [a  voice  :  "  Yes  !  "]  ; 
and  even  if  we  are  not  regularly  delegates,  it 
will  be  right  for  me  to  answer  your  call  to 
speak.  I  suppose  we  truly  stand  for  the  public 
sentiment  of  Sangamon  on  the  great  question 
136 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

of  the  repeal,  although  we  do  not  yet  represent 
many  numbers  who  have  taken  a  distinct  po 
sition  on  the  question. 

We  are  in  a  trying  time — it  ranges  above 
mere  party — and  this  movement  to  call  a  halt 
and  turn  our  steps  backward  needs  all  the  help 
and  good  counsels  it  can  get  ;  for  unless  popu 
lar  opinion  makes  itself  very  strongly  felt,  and 
a  change  is  made  in  our  present  course,  blood 
ivtll  floiv  on  account  of  Nebraska,  and  broth 
er 's  hand  will  be  raised  against  brother! 
[The  last  sentence  was  uttered  in  such  an  ear 
nest,  impressive,  if  not,  indeed,  tragic,  manner, 
as  to  make  a  cold  chill  creep  over  me.  Others 
gave  a  similar  experience.] 

I  have  listened  with  great  interest  to  the  ear 
nest  appeal  made  to  Illinois  men  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Lawrence  [James  S.  Emery]  who 
has  just  addressed  us  so  eloquently  and  forci 
bly.  I  was  deeply  moved  by  his  statement  of 
the  wrongs  done  to  free-State  men  out  there. 
I  think  it  just  to  say  that  all  true  men  North 
should  sympathize  with  them,  and  ought  to  be 
willing  to  do  any  possible  and  needful  thing 
to  right  their  wrongs.  But  we  must  not  prom 
ise  what  we  ought  not,  lest  we  be  called  on  to 
perform  what  we  cannot  ;  we  must  be  calm 
and  moderate,  and  consider  the  whole  diffi 
culty,  and  determine  what  is  possible  and  just. 
We  must  not  be  led  by  excitement  and  passion 
to  do  that  which  our  sober  judgments  would 
not  approve  in  our  cooler  moments.  We  have 
137 


Abraham   Lincoln 

higher  aims  ;  we  will  have  more  serious  busi 
ness  than  to  dally  with  temporary  measures. 

We  are  here  to  stand  firmly  for  a  principle— 
to  stand  firmly  for  a  right.  We  know  that 
great  political  and  moral  wrongs  are  done,  and 
outrages  committed,  and  we  denounce  those 
wrongs  and  outrages,  although  we  cannot,  at 
present,  do  much  more.  But  we  desire  to  reach 
out  beyond  those  personal  outrages  and  estab 
lish  a  rule  that  will  apply  to  all,  and  so  prevent 
any  future  outrages. 

We  have  seen  to-day  that  every  shade  of 
popular  opinion  is  represented  here,  with  Free 
dom  or  rather  Free-Soil  as  the  basis.  We  have 
come  together  as  in  some  sort  representatives 
of  popular  opinion  against  the  extension  of 
slavery  into  territory  now  free  in  fact  as  well 
as  by  law,  and  the  pledged  word  of  the  states 
men  of  the  nation  who  are  now  no  more.  We 
come — we  are  here  assembled  together — to  pro 
test  as  well  as  we  can  against  a  great  wrong, 
and  to  take  measures,  as  well  as  we  now  can, 
to  make  that  wrong  right  ;  to  place  the  nation, 
as  far  as  it  may  be  possible  now,  as  it  was  be 
fore  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  ; 
and  the  plain  way  to  do  this  is  to  restore  the 
Compromise,  and  to  demand  and  determine 
that  Kansas  shall  be  free  !  [Immense  ap 
plause.]  While  we  affirm,  and  reaffirm,  if  nec 
essary,  our  devotion  to  the  principles  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  let  our  practical 
work  here  be  limited  to  the  above.  We  know 
138 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

that  there  is  not  a  perfect  agreement  of  senti 
ment  here  on  the  public  questions  which  might 
be  rightfully  considered  in  this  convention,  and 
that  the  indignation  which  we  all  must  feel  can 
not  be  helped  ;  but  all  of  us  must  give  up  some 
thing  for  the  good  of  the  cause.  There  is  one 
desire  which  is  uppermost  in  the  mind,  one 
wish  common  to  us  all — to  which  no  dissent 
will  be  made  ;  and  I  counsel  you  earnestly  to 
bury  all  resentment,  to  sink  all  personal  feel 
ing,  make  all  things  work  to  a  common  purpose 
in  which  we  are  united  and  agreed  about,  and 
which  all  present  will  agree  is  absolutely  neces 
sary — which  must  be  done  by  any  rightful 
mode  if  there  be  such  :  Slavery  must  be  kept 
out  of  Kansas  !  [Applause.]  The  test — the 
pinch — is  right  there.  If  we  lose  Kansas  to 
freedom,  an  example  will  be  set  which  will 
prove  fatal  to  freedom  in  the  end.  We,  there 
fore,  in  the  language  of  the  Bible ,  must  "  lay 
the  axe  to  the  root  of  the  tree."  Temporizing 
will  not  do  longer  ;  now  is  the  time  for  decision 
—for  firm,  persistent,  resolute  action.  [Ap 
plause.] 

The  Nebraska  bill,  or  rather  Nebraska  law, 
is  not  one  of  wholesome  legislation,  but  was 
and  is  an  act  of  legislative  usurpation,  whose 
result,  if  not  indeed  intention,  is  to  make  slavery 
national  ;  and  unless  headed  off  in  some  effec 
tive  way,  we  are  in  a  fair  way  to  see  this  land 
of  boasted  freedom  converted  into  a  land  of 
slavery  in  fact.  [Sensation.]  Just  open  your 
139 


Abraham  Lincoln 

two  eyes,  and  see  if  this  be  not  so.  I  need  do 
no  more  than  state,  to  command  universal  ap 
proval,  that  almost  the  entire  North,  as  well  as 
a  large  following  in  the  border  States,  is  radi 
cally  opposed  to  the  planting  of  slavery  in  free 
territory.  Probably  in  a  popular  vote  through 
out  the  nation  nine-tenths  of  the  voters  in  the 
free  States,  and  at  least  one-half  in  the  border 
States,  if  they  could  express  their  sentiments 
freely,  would  vote  NO  on  such  an  issue  ;  and  it 
is  safe  to  say  that  two-thirds  of  the  votes  of  the 
entire  nation  would  be  opposed  to  it.  And  yet, 
in  spite  of  this  overbalancing  of  sentiment  in 
this  free  country,  we  are  in  a  fair  way  to  see 
Kansas  present  itself  for  admission  as  a  slave 
State.  Indeed,  it  is  a  felony,  by  the  local  law 
of  Kansas,  to  deny  that  slavery  exists  there 
even  now.  By  every  principle  of  law,  a  negro 
in  Kansas  is  free  ;  yet  the  bogus  legislature 
makes  it  an  infamous  crime  to  tell  him  that  he 
is  free  !* 
The  party  lash  and  the  fear  of  ridicule  will 

*  Statutes  of  Kansas,  1855,  Chapter  151,  Section  12.  If 
any  free  person,  by  speaking  or  by  writing,  assert  or 
maintain  that  persons  have  not  the  right  to  hold  slaves 
in  this  Territory,  or  shall  introduce  into  this  Territory, 
print,  publish,  write,  circulate  .  .  .  any  book,  paper, 
magazine,  pamphlet,  or  circular  containing  any  denial 
of  the  right  of  persons  to  hold  slaves  in  this  Territory, 
such  person  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  felony,  and  pun 
ished  by  imprisonment  at  hard  labor  for  a  term  of  not 
less  than  two  years. 

Sec.  13.  No  person  who  is  conscientiously  opposed  to 
holding  slaves,  or  who  does  not  admit  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  in  this  Territory,  shall  sit  as  a  juror  on  the 
trial  of  any  prosecution  for  any  violation  of  any  sec 
tions  of  this  Act. 

140 


"Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

overawe  justice  and  liberty  ;  for  it  is  a  singular 
fact,  but  none  the  less  a  fact,  and  well  known 
by  the  most  common  experience,  that  men  will 
do  things  under  the  terror  of  the  party  lash  that 
they  would  not  on  any  account  or  for  any  con 
sideration  do  otherwise  ;  while  men  who  will 
march  up  to  the  mouth  of  a  loaded  cannon  with 
out  shrinking,  will  run  from  the  terrible  name 
of  "  Abolitionist,"  even  when  pronounced  by  a 
worthless  creature  whom  they,  with  good  rea 
son,  despise.  For  instance — to  press  this  point 
a  little — Judge  Douglas  introduced  his  anti- 
Nebraska  bill  in  January  ;  and  we  had  an  ex 
tra  session  of  our  legislature  in  the  succeeding 
February,  in  which  were  seventy-five  Demo 
crats  ;  and  at  a  party  caucus,  fully  attended, 
there  were  just  three  votes  out  of  the  whole 
seventy-five,  for  the  measure.  But  in  a  few 
days  orders  came  on  from  Washington,  com 
manding  them  to  approve  the  measure  ;  the 
party  lash  was  applied,  and  it  was  brought  up 
again  in  caucus,  and  passed  by  a  large  major 
ity.  The  masses  were  against  it,  but  party 
necessity  carried  it  ;  and  it  was  passed  through 
the  lower  house  of  Congress  against  the  will  of 
the  people,  for  the  same  reason.  Here  is  where 
the  greatest  danger  lies — that,  while  we  profess 
to  be  a  government  of  law  and  reason,  law  will 
give  way  to  violence  on  demand  of  this  awful 
and  crushing  power.  Like  the  great  Jugger 
naut — I  think  that  is  the  name— the  great  idol, 
it  crushes  everything  that  comes  in  its  way,  and 
141 


Abraham  Lincoln 

makes  a — or  as  I  read  once,  in  a  black-letter 
law  book,  "a  slave  is  a  human  being  who  is 
legally  not  a  person,  but  a  thing."  And  if  the 
safeguards  to  liberty  are  broken  down,  as  is 
now  attempted,  when  they  have  made  things 
of  all  the  free  negroes,  how  long,  think  you,  be 
fore  they  will  begin  to  make  things  of  poor 
white  men  ?  [Applause.]  Be  not  deceived. 
Revolutions  do  not  go  backward.  The  founder 
of  the  Democratic  party  declared  that  all  men 
were  created  equal.  His  successor  in  the  lead 
ership  has  written  the  word  "  white"  before 
men,  making  it  read  "  all  white  men  are  cre 
ated  equal."  Pray,  will  or  may  not  the  Know- 
nothings,  if  they  should  get  in  power,  add  the 
word  "  protestant,"  making  it  read  "  all  prot 
est  ant  white  men"  ? 

Meanwhile  the  hapless  negro  is  the  fruitful 
subject  of  reprisals  in  other  quarters.  John 
Pettit,  whom  Tom  Benton  paid  his  respects  to, 
you  will  recollect,  calls  the  immortal  Declara 
tion  "a  self-evident  lie  ;"  while  at  the  birth 
place  of  freedom — in  the  shadow  of  Bunker 
Hill  and  of  the  "  cradle  of  liberty,"  at  the  home 
of  the  Adamses  and  Warren  and  Otis — Choate, 
from  our  side  of  the  house,  dares  to  fritter  away 
the  birthday  promise  of  liberty  by  proclaiming 
the  Declaration  to  be  "a  string  of  glittering 
generalities  ;"  and  the  Southern  Whigs,  work 
ing  hand  in  hand  with  pro-slavery  Democrats, 
are  making  Choate's  theories  practical.  Thomas 
Jefferson,  a  slaveholder,  mindful  of  the  moral 
142 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

element  in  slavery,  solemnly  declared  that  he 
"trembled  for  his  country  when  he  remem 
bered  that  God  is  just  ;"  while  Judge  Douglas, 
with  an  insignificant  wave  of  the  hand,  "  don't 
care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted 
down."  Now,  if  slavery  is  right,  or  even  nega 
tive,  he  has  a  right  to  treat  it  in  this  trifling 
manner.  But  if  it  is  a  moral  and  political 
wrong,  as  all  Christendom  considers  it  to  be, 
how  can  he  answer  to  God  for  this  attempt  to 
spread  and  fortify  it  ?  [Applause.] 

But  no  man,  and  Judge  Douglas  no  more 
than  any  other,  can  maintain  a  negative,  or 
merely  neutral,  position  on  this  question  ;  and, 
accordingly,  he  avows  that  the  Union  was  made 
by  white  men  and/0r  white  men  and  their  de 
scendants.  As  matter  of  fact,  the  first  branch 
of  the  proposition  is  historically  true  ;  the  gov 
ernment  was  made  by  white  men,  and  they 
were  and  are  the  superior  race.  This  I  admit. 
But  the  corner-stone  of  the  government,  so  to 
speak,  was  the  declaration  that  "  all  men  are 
created  equal,"  and  all  entitled  to  "  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. ' '  [Applause.] 

And  not  only  so,  but  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution  were  particular  to  keep  out  of  that  in 
strument  the  word  "  slave,"  the  reason  being 
that  slavery  would  ultimately  come  to  an  end, 
and  they  did  not  wish  to  have  any  reminder 
that  in  this  free  country  human  beings  were 
ever  prostituted  to  slavery.  [Applause.]  Nor 
is  it  any  argument  that  we  are  superior  and  the 
143 


Abraham  Lincoln 

negro  inferior — that  he  has  but  one  talent  while 
we  have  ten.  Let  the  negro  possess  the  little 
he  has  in  independence  ;  if  he  has  but  one  tal 
ent,  he  should  be  permitted  to  keep  the  little 
he  has.  [Applause.]  But  slavery  will  endure 
no  test  of  reason  or  logic  ;  and  yet  its  advo 
cates,  like  Douglas,  use  a  sort  of  bastard  logic, 
or  noisy  assumption,  it  might  better  be  termed, 
like  the  above,  in  order  to  prepare  the  mind  for 
the  gradual,  but  none  the  less  certain,  encroach 
ments  of  the  Moloch  of  slavery  upon  the  fair 
domain  of  freedom.  But  however  much  you 
may  argue  upon  it,  or  smother  it  in  soft  phrases, 
slavery  can  only  be  maintained  by  force — by 
violence.  The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  was  by  violence.  It  was  a  violation  of 
both  law  and  the  sacred  obligations  of  honor, 
to  overthrow  and  trample  underfoot  a  solemn 
compromise,  obtained  by  the  fearful  loss  to 
freedom  of  one  of  the  fairest  of  our  Western 
domains.  Congress  violated  the  will  and  con 
fidence  of  its  constituents  in  voting  for  the  bill  ; 
and  while  public  sentiment,  as  shown  by  the 
elections  of  1854,  demanded  the  restoration  of 
this  compromise,  Congress  violated  its  trust  by 
refusing,  simply  because  it  had  the  force  of 
numbers  to  hold  on  to  it.  And  murderous  vio 
lence  is  being  used  now,  in  order  to  force  slavery 
on  to  Kansas  ;  for  it  cannot  be  done  in  any 
other  way.  [Sensation.] 

The  necessary  result  was  to  establish  the  rule 
of  violence — force,  instead  of  the  rule  of  law 
144 


"Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

and  reason  ;  to  perpetuate  and  spread  slavery, 
and,  in  time,  to  make  it  general.  We  see  it  at 
both  ends  of  the  line.  In  Washington,  on  the 
very  spot  where  the  outrage  was  started,  the 
fearless  Sumner  is  beaten  to  insensibility,  and 
is  now  slowly  dying  ;  while  senators  who  claim 
to  be  gentlemen  and  Christians  stood  by,  coun 
tenancing  the  act,  and  even  applauding  it  after 
ward  in  their  places  in  the  Senate.  Even 
Douglas,  our  man,  saw  it  all  and  was  within 
helping  distance,  yet  let  the  murderous  blows 
fall  unopposed.  Then,  at  the  other  end  of  the 
line,  at  the  very  time  Sumner  was  being  mur 
dered,"  Lawrence  was  being  destroyed  for  the 
crime  of  Freedom.  It  was  the  most  prominent 
stronghold  of  liberty  in  Kansas,  and  must  give 
way  to  the  all-dominating  power  of  slavery. 
Only  two  days  ago,  Judge  Trumbull  found  it 
necessary  to  propose  a  bill  in  the  Senate  to  pre 
vent  a  general  civil  war  and  to  restore  peace  in 
Kansas. 

We  live  in  the  midst  of  alarms  ;  anxiety  be 
clouds  the  future  ;  we  expect  some  new  disaster 
with  each  newspaper  we  read.  Are  we  in  a 
healthful  political  state  ?  Are  not  the  tenden 
cies  plain  ?  Do  not  the  signs  of  the  times  point 
plainly  the  way  in  which  we  are  going  ?  [Sen 
sation.] 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Constitution  slavery 

was  recognized,  by  South  and  North  alike,  as 

an  evil,  and  the  division  of  sentiment  about  it 

was  not  controlled  by  geographical  lines  or  con- 

145 


Abraham  Lincoln 

siderations  of  climate,  but  by  moral  and  philan 
thropic  views.  Petitions  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  were  presented  to  the  very  first  Con 
gress  by  Virginia  and  Massachusetts  alike.  To 
show  the  harmony  which  prevailed,  I  will  state 
that  a  fugitive  slave  law  was  passed  in  1793, 
with  no  dissenting  voice  in  the  Senate,  and  but 
seven  dissenting  votes  in  the  House.  It  was, 
however,  a  wise  law,  moderate,  and,  under  the 
Constitution,  a  just  one.  Twenty-five  years 
later,  a  more  stringent  law  was  proposed  and 
defeated  ;  and  thirty-five  years  after  that,  the 
present  law,  drafted  by  Mason  of  Virginia,  was 
passed  by  Northern  votes.  I  am  not,  just  now, 
complaining  of  this  law,  but  I  am  trying  to 
show  how  the  current  sets  ;  for  the  proposed 
law  of  1817  was  far  less  offensive  than  the  pres 
ent  one.  In  1774  the  Continental  Congress 
pledged  itself,  without  a  dissenting  vote,  to 
wholly  discontinue  the  slave  trade,  and  to 
neither  purchase  nor  import  any  slave  ;  and 
less  than  three  months  before  the  passage  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  same 
Congress  which  adopted  that  declaration  unani 
mously  resolved  "  that  no  slave  be  imported 
into  any  of  the  thirteen  United  Colonies." 
[Great  applause.] 

On  the  second  day  of  July,  1776,  the  draft  of 
a  Declaration  of  Independence  was  reported  to 
Congress  by  the  committee,  and  in  it  the  slave 
trade  was  characterized  as  "an  execrable  com 
merce,"  as  "  a  piratical  warfare,"  as  the  "  op- 
146 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

probrium  of  infidel  powers,"  and  as  "  a  cruel 
war  against  human  nature. "  [Applause.]  All 
agreed  on  this  except  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  and  in  order  to  preserve  harmony, 
and  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  these  ex 
pressions  were  omitted.  Indeed,  abolition  soci 
eties  existed  as  far  south  as  Virginia  ;  and  it  is 
a  well-known  fact  that  "Washington,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Lee,  Henry,  Mason,  and  Pendleton 
were  qualified  abolitionists,  and  much  more 
radical  on  that  subject  than  we  of  the  Whig 
and  Democratic  parties  claim  to  be  to-day.  On 
March  i,  1784,  Virginia  ceded  to  the  confedera 
tion  all  its  lands  lying  northwest  of  the  Ohio- 
River.  Jefferson,  Chase  of  Maryland,  and 
Howell  of  Rhode  Island,  as  a  committee  on 
that  and  territory  thereafter  to  be  ceded,  re 
ported  that  no  slavery  should  exist  after  the 
year  1800.  Had  this  report  been  adopted,  not 
only  the  Northwest,  but  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
Alabama,  and  Mississippi  also  would  have  been 
free  ;  but  it  required  the  assent  of  nine  States 
to  ratify  it.  North  Carolina  was  divided,  and 
thus  its  vote  was  lost  ;  and  Delaware,  Georgia, 
and  New  Jersey  refused  to  vote.  In  point  of 
fact,  as  it  was,  it  was  assented  to  by  six  States. 
Three  years  later,  on  a  square  vote  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  Northwest,  only  one  vote,  and 
that  from  New  York,  was  against  it.  And  yet, 
thirty-seven  years  later,  five  thousand  citizens 
of  Illinois  out  of  a  voting  mass  of  less  than 
twelve  thousand,  deliberately,  after  a  long  and 
147 


Abraham  Lincoln 

heated  contest,  voted  to  introduce  slavery  in 
Illinois  ;  and,  to-day,  a  large  party  in  the  free 
State  of  Illinois  are  willing  to  vote  to  fasten  the 
shackles  of  slavery  on  the  fair  domain  of  Kan 
sas,  notwithstanding  it  received  the  dowry  of 
freedom  long  before  its  birth  as  a  political  com 
munity.  I  repeat,  therefore,  the  question,  Is  it 
not  plain  in  what  direction  we  are  tending  ? 
[Sensation.]  In  the  colonial  time,  Mason, 
Pendleton,  and  Jefferson  were  as  hostile  to 
slavery  in  Virginia  as  Otis,  Ames,  and  the 
Adamses  were  in  Massachusetts  ;  and  Virginia 
made  as  earnest  an  effort  to  get  rid  of  it  as  old 
Massachusetts  did.  But  circumstances  were 
against  them  and  they  failed  ;  but  not  that  the 
good  will  of  its  leading  men  was  lacking.  Yet 
within  less  than  fifty  years  Virginia  changed  its 
tune,  and  made  negro-breeding  for  the  cotton 
and  sugar  States  one  of  its  leading  industries. 
[Laughter  and  applause.] 

In  the  Constitutional  Convention,  George 
Mason  of  Virginia  made  a  more  violent  aboli 
tion  speech  than  my  friends  Lovejoy  or  Cod 
ding  would  desire  to  make  here  to-day — a 
speech  which  could  not  be  safely  repeated  any 
where  on  Southern  soil  in  this  enlightened  year. 
But  while  there  were  some  differences  of  opin 
ion  on  this  subject  even  then,  discussion  was 
allowed  ;  but  as  you  see  by  the  Kansas  slave 
code,  which,  as  you  know,  is  the  Missouri  slave 
code,  merely  ferried  across  the  river,  it  is  a 
felony  to  even  express  an  opinion  hostile  to  that 
148 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

foul  blot  in  the  land  of  Washington  and  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.     [Sensation.] 

In  Kentucky— my  State — in  1849,  on  a  test 
vote,  the  mighty  influence  of  Henry  Clay  and 
many  other  good  men  there  could  not  get  a 
symptom  of  expression  in  favor  of  gradual 
emancipation  on  a  plain  issue  of  marching  tow 
ard  the  light  of  civilization  with  Ohio  and 
Illinois  ;  but  the  State  of  Boone  and  Hardin 
and  Henry  Clay,  with  a  nigger  under  each 
arm,  took  the  black  trail  toward  the  deadly 
swamps  of  barbarism.  Is  there — can  there  be 
—any  doubt  about  this  thing?  And  is  there 
any  doubt  that  we  must  all  lay  aside  our  prej 
udices  and  march,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  the 
great  army  of  Freedom  ?  [Applause.] 

Every  Fourth  of  July  our  young  orators  all 
proclaim  this  to  be  "  the  land  of  the  free  and 
the  home  of  the  brave  !"  Well,  now,  when  you 
orators  get  that  off  next  year,  and,  may  be,  this 
very  year,  how  would  you  like  some  old  griz 
zled  farmer  to  get  up  in  the  grove  and  deny  it  ? 
[Laughter.]  How  would  you  like  that  ?  But 
suppose  Kansas  comes  in  as  a  slave  State,  and 
all  the  "  border  ruffians"  have  barbecues  about 
it,  and  free-State  men  come  trailing  back  to  the 
dishonored  North,  like  whipped  dogs  with  their 
tails  between  their  legs,  it  is — ain't  it  ? — evident 
that  this  is  no  more  the  "land  of  the  free  ;" 
and  if  we  let  it  go  so,  we  won't  dare  to  say 
' '  home  of  the  brave"  out  loud.  [Sensation  and 
confusion.] 

149 


Abraham  Lincoln 

Can  any  man  doubt  that,  even  in  spite  of  the 
people's  will,  slavery  will  triumph  through  vio 
lence,  unless  that  will  be  made  manifest  and 
enforced  ?  Even  Governor  Reeder  claimed  at 
the  outset  that  the  contest  in  Kansas  was  to  be 
fair,  but  he  got  his  eyes  open  at  last  ;  and  I  be 
lieve  that,  as  a  result  of  this  moral  and  physical 
violence,  Kansas  will  soon  apply  for  admission 
as  a  slave  State.  And  yet  we  can't  mistake 
that  the  people  don't  want  it  so,  and  that  it  is 
a  land  which  is  free  both  by  natural  and  politi 
cal  law.  No  law  is  free  law  !  Such  is  the 
understanding  of  all  Christendom.  In  the  Som 
erset  case,  decided  nearly  a  century  ago,  the 
great  Lord  Mansfield  held  that  slavery  was  of 
such  a  nature  that  it  must  take  its  rise  in  posi 
tive  (as  distinguished  from  natural}  law  ;  and 
that  in  no  country  or  age  could  it  be  traced 
back  to  any  other  source.  Will  some  one  please 
tell  me  where  is  the  positive  law  that  establishes 
slavery  in  Kansas  ?  [A  voice  :  ' '  The  bogiis 
laws."]  Aye,  the  bogus  laws  !  And,  on  the 
same  principle,  a  gang  of  Missouri  horse-thieves 
could  come  into  Illinois  and  declare  horse-steal 
ing  to  be  legal  [Laughter] ,  and  it  would  be  just 
as  legal  as  slavery  is  in  Kansas.  But  by  ex 
press  statute,  in  the  land  of  Washington  and 
Jefferson,  we  may  soon  be  brought  face  to  face 
with  the  discreditable  fact  of  showing  to  tiie 
world  by  our  acts  that  we  prefer  slavery  to  free 
dom—darkness  to  light  !  [Sensation  ] 

It  is,  I  believe,  a  principle  in  law  that  when 
150 


"Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

one  party  to  a  contract  violates  it  so  grossly  as 
to  chiefly  destroy  the  object  for  which  it  is 
made,  the  other  party  may  rescind  it.  I  will 
ask  Browning  if  that  ain't  good  law.  [Voices  : 
"  Yes  !"]  Well,  now  if  that  be  right,  I  go  for 
rescinding  the  whole,  entire  Missouri  Compro 
mise  and  thus  turning  Missouri  into  a  free 
State  ;  and  I  should  like  to  know  the  difference 
— should  like  for  any  one  to  point  out  the  differ 
ence — between  oitr  making  a  free  State  of  Mis 
souri  and  their  making  a  slave  State  of  Kansas. 
[Great  applause.]  There  ain't  one  bit  of  differ 
ence,  except  that  our  way  would  be  a  great 
mercy  to  humanity.  But  I  have  never  said— 
and  the  Whig  party  has  never  said — and  those 
who  oppose  the  Nebraska  bill  do  not  as  a  body 
say,  that  they  have  any  intention  of  interfering 
with  slavery  in  the  slave  States.  Our  platform 
says  just  the  contrary.  We  allow  slavery  to  ex 
ist  in  the  slave  States — not  because  slavery  is 
right  or  good,  but  from  the  necessities  of  our 
Union.  We  grant  a  fugitive  slave  law  because 
it  is  so  "  nominated  in  the  bond  ;"  because  our 
fathers  so  stipulated — had  to — and  we  are  bound 
to  carry-  out  this  agreement.  But  they  did  not 
agree  to  introduce  slavery  in  regions  where  it 
did  not  previously  exist.  On  the  contrary,  they 
said  by  their  example  and  teachings  that  they 
did  not  deem  it  expedient — did  not  consider  it 
right— to  do  so  ;  and  it  is  wise  and  right  to  do 
just  as  they  did  about  it  [Voices  :  "  Good  !"], 
and  that  is  what  wxe  propose — not  to  interfere 
151 


Abraham  Lincoln 

with  slavery  where  it  exists  (we  have  never 
tried  to  do  it),  and  to  give  them  areasonab:e 
and  efficient  fugitive  slave  law.  [A  voice  : 
"No!"]  I  say  YES!  [Applause.]  It  wts 
part  of  the  bargain,  and  I'm  for  living  up  to  it  ; 
but  I  go  no  further  ;  I'm  not  bound  to  do  more, 
and  I  won't  agree  any  further.  [Great  ap 
plause.] 

We,  here  in  Illinois,  should  feel  especial)/ 
proud  of  the  provision  of  the  Missouri  Comprc  - 
mise  excluding  slavery  from  what  is  now  Kan 
sas  ;  for  an  Illinois  man,  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  \va> 
its  father.  Henry  Clay,  who  is  credited  with 
the  authorship  of  the  Compromise  in  general 
terms,  did  not  even  vote  for  that  provision,  bu: 
only  advocated  the  ultimate  admission  by  a  sec 
ond  compromise  ;  and  Thomas  was,  beyond  all 
controversy,  the  real  author  of  the  "  slavery  re 
striction"  branch  of  the  Compromise.  To  show 
the  generosity  of  the  Northern  members  toward 
the  Southern  side  ;  on  a  test  vote  to  exclude 
slavery  from  Missouri,  ninety  voted  not  to  ex 
clude,  and  eighty-seven  to  exclude,  every  vote 
from  the  slave  States  being  ranged  with  the  for 
mer  and  fourteen  votes  from  the  free  States,  of 
whom  seven  were  from  New  England  alone  ; 
while  on  a  vote  to  exclude  slavery  from  what  is 
now  Kansas,  the  vote  was  one  hundred  and 
thirty-four  for  to  forty-two  against.  The 
scheme,  as  a  whole,  was,  of  course,  a  Southern 
triumph.  It  is  idle  to  contend  otherwise,  as  is 
now  being  done  by  the  Nebraskaites  ;  it  was 
152 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

so  shown  by  the  votes  and  quite  as  emphati 
cally  by  the  expressions  of  representative  men. 
Mr.  Lowndes  of  South  Carolina  was  never 
known  to  commit  a  political  mistake  ;  his  was 
the  great  judgment  of  that  section  ;  and  he  de 
clared  that  this  measure  ' '  would  restore  tran 
quillity  to  the  country — a  result  demanded  by 
every  consideration  of  discretion,  of  modera 
tion,  of  wisdom,  and  of  virtue."  When  the 
measure  came  before  President  Monroe  for  his 
approval,  he  put  to  each  member  of  his  cabinet 
this  question  :  "  Has  Congress  the  constitu 
tional  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  territory?" 
And  John  C.  Calhoun  and  William  H.  Craw 
ford  from  the  South,  equally  with  John  Quincy 
Adams,  Benjamin  Rush,  and  Smith  Thompson 
from  the  North,  alike  answered,  "  Yes  !"  with 
out  qualification  or  equivocation  ;  and  this  meas 
ure,  of  so  great  consequence  to  the  South,  was 
passed  ;  and  Missouri  was,  by  means  of  it, 
finally  enabled  to  knock  at  the  door  of  the  Re 
public  for  an  open  passage  to  its  brood  of  slaves. 
/  And,  in  spite  of  this,  Freedom's  share  is  about 
to  be  taken  by  violence — by  the  force  of  mis- 
representative  votes,  not  called  for  by  the  popu 
lar  will.  What  name  can  I,  in  common  de 
cency,  give  to  this  wicked  transaction  ?  [Sen 
sation.] 

But  even  then  the  contest  was  not  over  ;  for 

when  the   Missouri   constitution    came   before 

Congress  for  its  approval,  it  forbade  any  free 

negro  or  mulatto  from  entering  the  State.     In 

153 


Abraham  Lincoln 

short,  our  Illinois  "black  laws"  were  hidden 
away  in  their  constitution  [Laughter] ,  and  the 
controversy  was  thus  revived.  Then  it  was 
that  Mr.  Clay's  talents  shone  out  conspicuously, 
and  the  controversy  that  shook  the  Union  to  its 
foundation  was  finally  settled  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  conservative  parties  on  both  sides  of  the 
line,  though  not  to  the  extremists  on  either,  and 
Missouri  was  admitted  by  the  small  majority  of 
six  in  the  lower  House.  How  great  a  majority, 
do  you  think,  would  have  been  given  had  Kan 
sas  also  been  secured  for  slavery  ?  [A  voice  : 
"A  majority  the  other  way."]  "A  majority 
the  other  \vay,"  is  answered.  Do  you  think  it 
would  have  been  safe  for  a  Northern  man  to 
have  confronted  his  constituents  after  having 
voted  to  consign  both  Missouri  and  Kansas  to 
hopeless  slavery  ?  And  yet  this  man  Douglas, 
who  misrepresents  his  constituents  and  who 
has  exerted  his  highest  talents  in  that  direction, 
will  be  carried  in  triumph  through  the  State 
and  hailed  with  honor  while  applauding  that 
act.  [Three  groans  for  "Dug!"]  And  this 
shows  whither  we  are  tending.  This  thing  of 
slavery  is  more  powerful  than  its  supporters — 
even  than  the  high  priests  that  minister  at  its 
altar.  It  debauches  even  our  greatest  men.  It 
gathers  strength,  like  a  rolling  snow-ball,  by  its 
own  infamy.  Monstrous  crimes  are  committed 
in  its  name  by  persons  collectively  which  they 
would  not  dare  to  commit  as  individuals.  Its 
aggressions  and  encroachments  almost  surpass 
154 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

belief.  In  a  despotism,  one  might  not  wonder 
to  see  slavery  advance  steadily  and  remorse 
lessly  into  new  dominions  ;  but  is  it  not  won 
derful,  is  it  not  even  alarming,  to  see  its  steady 
advance  in  a  land  dedicated  to  the  proposition 
that  "  all  men  are  created  equal"  ?  [Sensa 
tion.] 

It  yields  nothing  itself  ;  it  keeps  all  it  has, 
and  gets  all  it  can  besides.  It  really  came  dan 
gerously  near  securing  Illinois  in  1824  ;  it  did 
get  Missouri  in  1821.  The  first  proposition  was 
to  admit  what  is  now  Arkansas  and  Missouri  as 
one  slave  State.  But  the  territory  was  divided, 
and  Arkansas  came  in,  without  serious  ques 
tion,  as  a  slave  State  ;  and  afterward  Missouri, 
not  as  a  sort  of  equality,  free,  but  also  as  a 
slave  State.  Then  we  had  Florida  and  Texas  ; 
and  now  Kansas  is  about  to  be  forced  into  the 
dismal  procession.  [Sensation.]  And  so  it  is 
wherever  you  look.  We  have  not  forgotten — 
it  is  but  six  years  since— how  dangerously  near 
California  came  to  being  a  slave  State.  Texas 
is  a  slave  State,  and  four  other  slave  States  may 
be  carved  from  its  vast  domain.  And  yet,  in 
the  year  1829,  slavery  was  abolished  throughout 
that  vast  region  by  a  royal  decree  of  the  then 
sovereign  of  Mexico.  Will  you  please  tell  me 
by  what  right  slavery  exists  in  Texas  to-day  ? 
By  the  same  right  as,  and  no  higher  or  greater 
than,  slavery  is  seeking  dominion  in  Kansas  : 
by  political  force — peaceful,  if  that  will  suffice  ; 
by  the  torch  (as  in  Kansas)  and  the  bludgeon 
155 


Abraham  Lincoln 

(as  in  the  Senate  chamber),  if  required.  And 
so  history  repeats  itself  ;  and  even  as  slavery 
has  kept  its  course  by  craft,  intimidation,  and 
violence  in  the  past,  so  it  will  persist,  in  my 
judgment,  until  met  and  dominated  by  the  will 
of  a  people  bent  on  its  restriction. 

We  have,  this  very  afternoon,  heard  bitter 
denunciations  of  Brooks  in  Washington,  and 
Titus,  Stringfellow,  Atchison,  Jones,  and  Shan 
non  in  Kansas— the  battle-ground  of  slavery. 
I  certainly  am  not  going  to  advocate  or  shield 
them  ;  but  they  and  their  acts  are  but  the  nec 
essary  outcome  of  the  Nebraska  law.  We 
should  reserve  our  highest  censure  for  the  au 
thors  of  the  mischief,  and  not  for  the  catspaws 
which  they  use.  I  believe  it  was  Shakespeare 
who  said,  "Where  the  offense  lies,  there  let 
the  axe  fall  ;"  and,  in  my  opinion,  this  man 
Douglas  and  the  Northern  men  in  Congress 
who  advocate  "  Nebraska"  are  more  guilty  than 
a  thousand  Joneses  and  Stringfellows,  with  all 
their  murderous  practices,  can  be.  [Applause.  ] 

We  have  made  a  good  beginning  here  to-day. 
As  our  Methodist  friends  would  say,  "  I  feel  it 
is  good  to  be  here."  While  extremists  may 
find  some  fault  with  the  moderation  of  our  plat 
form,  they  should  recollect  that  "  the  battle  is 
not  always  to  the  strong,  nor  the  race  to  the 
swift."  In  grave  emergencies,  moderation  is 
generally  safer  than  radicalism  ;  and  as  this 
struggle  is  likely  to  be  long  and  earnest,  we 
must  not,  by  our  action,  repel  any  who  are  in 
156 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

sympathy  with  us  in  the  main,  but  rather  win 
all  that  we  can  to  our  standard.  We  must  not 
belittle  nor  overlook  the  facts  of  our  condition 
— that  we  are  new  and  comparatively  weak, 
while  our  enemies  are  entrenched  and  relatively 
strong.  They  have  the  administration  and  the 
political  power  ;  and,  right  or  wrong,  at  present 
they  have  the  numbers.  Our  friends  who  urge 
an  appeal  to  arms  with  so  much  force  and  elo 
quence,  should  recollect  that  the  government  is 
arrayed  against  us,  and  that  the  numbers  are 
now  arrayed  against  us  as  well  ;  or,  to  state  it 
nearer  to  the  truth,  they  are  not  yet  expressly 
and  affirmatively  for  us  ;  and  we  should  repel 
friends  rather  than  gain  them  by  anything 
savoring  of  revolutionary  methods.  As  it  now 
stands,  we  must  appeal  to  the  sober  sense  and 
patriotism  of  the  people.  We  will  make  con 
verts  day  by  day  ;  we  will  grow  strong  by  calm 
ness  and  moderation  ;  we  will  grow  strong  by 
the  violence  and  injustice  of  our  adversaries. 
And,  unless  truth  be  a  mockery  and  justice  a 
hollow  lie.  we  will  be  in  the  majority  after  a 
while,  and  then  the  revolution  which  we  will 
accomplish  will  be  none  the  less  radical  from 
being  the  result  of  pacific  measures.  The  bat 
tle  of  freedom  is  to  be  fought  out  on  principle. 
Slavery  is  a  violation  of  the  eternal  right.  We 
have  temporized  with  it  from  the  necessities  of 
our  condition  ;  but  as  sure  as  God  reigns  and 
school  children  read,  THAT  BLACK  FOUL  LIE  CAN 

NEVER    BE    CONSECRATED    INTO     GOD'S     HALLOWED 
157 


Abraham   Lincoln 

TRUTH  !  [Immense  applause  lasting  some 
time.]  One  of  our  greatest  difficulties  is,  that 
men  who  know  that  slavery  is  a  detestable 
crime  and  ruinous  to  the  nation,  are  compelled., 
by  our  peculiar  condition  and  other  circum 
stances,  to  advocate  it  concretely,  though  damn 
ing  it  in  the  raw.  Henry  Clay  was  a  brilliant 
example  of  this  tendency  ;  others  of  our  purest 
statesmen  are  compelled  to  do  so  ;  and  thus 
slavery  secures  actual  support  from  those  who 
detest  it  at  heart.  Yet  Henry  Clay  perfected 
and  forced  through  the  Compromise  which 
secured  to  slavery  a  great  State  as  well  as  a 
political  advantage.  Not  that  he  hated  slavery 
less,  but  that  he  loved  the  whole  Union  more. 
As  long  as  slavery  profited  by  his  great  Com 
promise,  the  hosts  of  pro-slavery  could  not  suffi 
ciently  cover  him  with  praise  ;  but  now  that 
this  Compromise  stands  in  their  way — 

"...  they  never  mention  him, 
His  name  is  never  heard  : 
Their  lips  are  now  forbid  to  speak 
That  once  familiar  word." 

They  have  slaughtered  one  of  his  most  cher 
ished  measures,  and  his  ghost  would  arise  to 
rebuke  them.  [Great  applause.] 

Now,  let  us  harmonize,  my  friends,  and  ap 
peal  to  the  moderation  and  patriotism  of  the 
people  :  to  the  sober  second  thought  ;  to  the 
awakened  public  conscience.  The  repeal  of 
the  sacred  Missouri  Compromise  has  installed 
the  weapons  of  violence  :  the  bludgeon,  the  in- 
153 


"Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

cendiary  torch,  the  death-dealing  rifle,  the 
bristling  cannon — the  weapons  of  kingcraft,  of 
the  inquisition,  of  ignorance,  of  barbarism,  of 
oppression.  We  see  its  fruits  in  the  dying  bed 
of  the  heroic  Sumner  ;  in  the  ruins  of  the  ' '  Free 
State"  hotel  ;  in  the  smoking  embers  of  the 
Herald  of  Freedom  ;  in  the  free-State  Gov 
ernor  of  Kansas  chained  to  a  stake  on  freedom's 
soil  like  a  horse-thief,  for  the  crime  of  freedom. 
[Applause.]  We  see  it  in  Christian  statesmen, 
and  Christian  newspapers,  and  Christian  pul 
pits,  applauding  the  cowardly  act  of  a  low 

bully,  WHO  CRAWLED  UPON  HIS  VICTIM  BEHIND 
HIS  BACK  AND  DEALT  THE  DEADLY  BLOW.  [Sen- 

sation  and  applause.]  We  note  our  political 
demoralization  in  the  catch-words  that  are  com 
ing  into  such  common  use  ;  on  the  one  hand, 
"  freedom-shriekers,"  and  sometimes  "  free 
dom  -screechers"  [Laughter]  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  "border  ruffians,"  and  that  fully  de 
served.  And  the  significance  of  catch-words 
cannot  pass  unheeded,  for  they  constitute  a 
sign  of  the  times.  Everything  in  this  world 
"jibes"  in  with  everything  else,  and  all  the 
fruits  of  this  Nebraska  bill  are  like  the  poisoned 
source  from  which  they  come.  I  will  not  say 
that  we  may  not  sooner  or  later  be  compelled 
to  meet  force  by  force  ;  but  the  time  has  not 
yet  come,  and  if  we  are  true  to  ourselves,  may 
never  come.  Do  not  mistake  that  the  ballot  is 
stronger  than  the  bullet.  Therefore  let  the 
legions  of  slavery  use  bullets  ;  but  let  us  wait 
159 


Abraham   Lincoln 

patiently  till  November,  and  fire  ballots  at 
them  in  return  ;  and  by  that  peaceful  policy,  I 
believe  we  shall  ultimately  win.  [Applause.] 

It  was  by  that  policy  that  here  in  Illinois  the 
early  fathers  fought  the  good  fight  and  gained 
the  victory.  In  1824  the  free  men  of  our  State, 
led  by  Governor  Coles  (who  was  a  native  of 
Maryland  and  President  Madison's  private  sec 
retary),  determined  that  those  beautiful  groves 
should  never  reecho  the  dirge  of  one  who  has 
no  title  to  himself.  By  their  resolute  determi 
nation  ,  the  winds  that  sweep  across  our  broad 
prairies  shall  never  cool  the  parched  brow,  nor 
shall  the  unfettered  streams  that  bring  joy  and 
gladness  to  our  free  soil  water  the  tired  feet,  of 
a  slave  ;  but  so  long  as  those  heavenly  breezes 
and  sparkling  streams  bless  the  land,  or  the 
groves  and  their  fragrance  or  their  memory  re 
main,  the  humanity  to  which  they  minister 
SHALL  BE  FOREVER  FREE  !  [Great  applause.] 
Palmer,  Yates,  Williams,  Browning,  and  some 
more  in  this  convention  came  from  Kentucky 
to  Illinois  (instead  of  going  to  Missouri),  not 
only  to  better  their  conditions,  but  also  to  get 
away  from  slavery.  They  have  said  so  to  me, 
and  it  is  understood  among  us  Kentuckians 
that  we  don't  like  it  one  bit.  Now,  can  we, 
mindful  of  the  blessings  of  liberty  which  the 
early  men  of  Illinois  left  to  us,  refuse  a  like 
privilege  to  the  free  men  who  seek  to  plant 
Freedom's  banner  on  our  Western  outposts? 
["  No  !  No  !"J  Should  we  not  stand  by  our 
160 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

neighbors  who  seek  to  better  their  conditions 
in  Kansas  and  Nebraska?  ["Yes!  Yes!"] 
Can  we  as  Christian  men,  and  strong  and  free 
ourselves,  wield  the  sledge  or  hold  the  iron 
which  is  to  manacle  anew  an  already  oppressed 
race?  ["  No  !  No  !"]  "  Woe  unto  them,"  it 
is  written,  "that  decree  unrighteous  decrees 
and  that  write  grievousness  which  they  have 
prescribed."  Can  we  afford  to  sin  any  more 
deeply  against  human  liberty  ?  ["No!  No  !"] 
One  great  trouble  in  the  matter  is,  that 
slavery  is  an  insidious  and  crafty  power,  and 
gains  equally  by  open  violence  of  the  brutal  as 
well  as  by  sly  management  of  the  peaceful. 
Even  after  the  ordinance  of  1787,  the  settlers  in 
Indiana  and  Illinois  (it  was  all  one  government 
then)  tried  to  get  Congress  to  allow  slavery 
temporarily,  and  petitions  to  that  end  were  sent 
from  Kaskaskia,  and  General  Harrison,  the 
Governor,  urged  it  from  Vincennes,  the  cap 
ital.  If  that  had  succeeded,  good-by  to  liberty 
here.  But  John  kandolph  of  Virginia  made  a 
vigorous  report  against  it  ;  and  although  they 
persevered  so  well  as  to  get  three  favorable  re' 
ports  for  it,  yet  the  United  States  Senate,  with 
the  aid  of  some  slave  States,  finally  squelched 
it  for  good.  [Applause.]  And  that  is  why 
this  hall  is  to-day  a  temple  for  free  men  instead 
of  a  negro  livery  stable.  [Great  applause  and 
laughter.]  Once  let  slavery  get  planted  in  a 
locality,  by  ever  so  weak  or  doubtful  a  title,  and 
in  ever  so  small  numbers,  and  it  is  like  the  Can- 
161 


Abraham  Lincoln 

ada  thistle  or  Bermuda  grass— you  can't  root  it 
out.  You  yourself  may  detest  slavery  ;  but 
your  neighbor  has  five  or  six  slaves,  and  he  is 
an  excellent  neighbor,  or  your  son  has  married 
his  daughter,  and  they  beg  you  to  help  save 
their  property,  and  you  vote  against  your  inter 
est  and  principles  to  accommodate  a  neighbor, 
hoping  that  your  vote  will  be  on  the  losing  side. 
And  others  do  the  same  ;  and  in  those  ways 
slavery  gets  a  sure  foothold.  And  when  that 
is  done  the  whole  mighty  Union — the  force  of 
the  nation — is  committed  to  its  support.  And 
that  very  process  is  working  in  Kansas  to-day. 
And  you  must  recollect  that  the  slave  property 
is  worth  a  billion  of  dollars  ($1,000,000,000)  ; 
while  free-State  men  must  work  for  sentiment 
alone.  Then  there  are  "  blue  lodges" — as  they 
call  them — everywhere  doing  their  secret  and 
deadly  work. 

It  is  a  very  strange  thing,  and  not  solvable 
by  any  moral  law  that  I  know  of,  that  if  a  man 
loses  his  horse,  the  whole  country  will  turn  out 
to  help  hang  the  thief  ;  but  if  a  man  but  a 
shade  or  two  darker  than  I  am  is  himself  stolen, 
the  same  crowd  will  hang  one  who  aids  in  re 
storing  him  to  liberty.  Such  are  the  inconsis 
tencies  of  slavery,  where  a  horse  is  more  sacred 
than  a  man  ;  and  the  essence  of  squatter  or 
popular  sovereignty— I  don't  care  how  you  call 
it — is  that  if  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave 
of  another,  no  third  man  shall  be  allowed  to 
object.  And  if  you  can  do  this  in  free  Kansas, 
162 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

and  it  is  allowed  to  stand,  the  next  thing  you 
will  see  is  ship  loads  of  negroes  from  Africa  at 
the  wharf  at  Charleston  ;  for  one  thing  is  as 
truly  lawful  as  the  other  ;  and  these  are  the 
bastard  notions  we  have  got  to  stamp  out,  else 
they  will  stamp  us  out.  [Sensation  and  ap 
plause.] 

Two  years  ago,  at  Springfield,  Judge  Douglas 
avowed  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a 
slave  State,  and  that  slavery  was  weeded  out 
by  the  operation  of  his  great,  patent,  ever 
lasting  principle  of  "  popular  sovereignty." 
[Laughter.]  Well,  now,  that  argument  must 
be  answered,  for  it  has  a  little  grain  of  truth  at 
the  bottom.  I  do  not  mean  that  it  is  true  in 
essence,  as  he  would  have  us  believe.  It  could 
not  be  essentially  true  if  the  ordinance  of  '87 
was  valid.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  there  were 
some  degraded  beings  called  slaves  in  Kaskas- 
kia  and  the  other  French  settlements  when  our 
first  State  constitution  was  adopted  ;  that  is  a 
fact,  and  I  don't  deny  it.  Slaves  were  brought 
here  as  early  as  1720,  and  were  kept  here  in 
spite  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  against  it.  But 
slavery  did  not  thrive  here.  On  the  contrary, 
under  the  influence  of  the  ordinance,  the  num 
ber  decreased  fifty-one  from  1810  to  1820  ;  while 
under  the  influence  of  squatter  sovereignty, 
right  across  the  river  in  Missouri,  they  increased 
seven  thousand  two  hundred  and  eleven  in  the 
same  time  ;  and  slavery  finally  faded  out  in 
Illinois,  under  the  influence  of  the  law  of  free- 
163 


Abraham  Lincoln 

dom,  while  it  grew  stronger  and  stronger  in 
Missouri,  under  the  law  or  practice  of  "  popular 
sovereignty."  In  point  of  fact  there  were  but 
one  hundred  and  seventeen  slaves  in  Illinois 
one  year  after  its  admission,  or  one  to  every 
four  hundred  and  seventy  of  its  population  ;  or, 
to  state  it  in  another  way,  if  Illinois  was  a  slave 
State  in  1820,  so  were  New  York  and  New  Jer 
sey  much  greater  slave  States  from  having  had 
greater  numbers,  slavery  having  been  estab 
lished  there  in  very  early  times.  But  there  is 
this  vital  difference  between  all  these  States 
and  the  judge's  Kansas  experiment  :  that  they 
sought  to  disestablish  slavery  which  had  been 
already  established,  while  the  judge  seeks,  so 
far  as  he  can,  to  disestablish  freedom,  which 
had  been  established  there  by  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  [Voices  :  "  Good  !"] 

The  Union  is  undergoing  a  fearful  strain  ; 
but  it  is  a  stout  old  ship,  and  has  weathered 
1  many  a  hard  blow,  and  "the  stars  in  their 
courses,"  aye,  an  invisible  power,  greater  than 
the  puny  efforts  of  men,  will  fight  for  us.  But 
we  ourselves  must  not  decline  the  burden  of  re 
sponsibility,  nor  take  counsel  of  unworthy  pas 
sions.  Whatever  duty  urges  us  to  do  or  to 
omit,  must  be  done  or  omitted  ;  and  the  reck 
lessness  with  which  our  adversaries  break  the 
laws,  or  counsel  their  violation,  should  afford 
no  example  for  us.  Therefore,  let  us  revere 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  ;  let  us  con 
tinue  to  obey  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  ; 
164 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech  " 

let  us  keep  step  to  the  music  of  the  Union.  Let 
us  draw  a  cordon,  so  to  speak,  around  the  slave 
States,  and  the  hateful  institution,  like  a  reptile 
poisoning  itself,  will  perish  by  its  own  infamy. 
[Applause.] 

But  we  cannot  be  free  men  if  this  is,  by  our 
national  choice,  to  be  a  land  of  slavery.  Those 
who  deny  freedom  to  others,  deserve  it  not  for 
themselves  ;  and,  under  the  rule  of  a  just  God, 
cannot  long  retain  it.  [Loud  applause.] 

Did  you  ever,  my  friends,  seriously  reflect 
upon  the  speed  with  which  we  are  tending 
downward  ?  Within  the  memory  of  men  now 
present  the  leading  statesmen  of  Virginia  could 
make  genuine,  red-hot  abolitionist  speeches  in 
old  Virginia  ;  and,  as  I  have  said,  now  even  in 
"  free  Kansas"  it  is  a  crime  to  declare  that  it  is 
"free  Kansas."  The  very  sentiments  that  I 
and  others  have  just  uttered  would  entitle  us, 
and  each  of  us,  to  the  ignominy  and  seclusion 
of  a  dungeon  ;  and  yet  I  suppose  that,  like 
Paul,  we  were  "  free  born."  But  if  this  thing 
is  allowed  to  continue,  it  will  be  but  one  step 
further  to  impress  the  same  rule  in  Illinois. 
[Sensation.] 

The  conclusion  of  all  is,  that  we  must  restore 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  We  must  highly  re 
solve  that  Kansas  must  be  free  !  [Great  ap 
plause.]  We  must  reinstate  the  birthday  prom 
ise  of  the  Republic  ;  we  must  reaffirm  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence  ;  we  must  make  good 
in  essence  as  well  as  in  form  Madison's  avowal 
165 


Abraham  Lincoln 

that  "the  word  slave  ought  not  to  appear  in 
the  Constitution  ;"  and  we  must  even  go  fur 
ther,  and  decree  that  only  local  law,  and  not 
that  time-honored  instrument,  shall  shelter  a 
slave-holder.  We  must  make  this  a  land  of 
liberty  in  fact,  as  it  is  in  name.  But  in  seeking 
to  attain  these  results — so  indispensable  if  the 
liberty  which  is  our  pride  and  boast  shall  en 
dure — we  will  be  loyal  to  the  Constitution  and 
to  the  "flag  of  our  Union,"  and  no  matter 
what  our  grievance— even  though  Kansas  shall 
come  in  as  a  slave  State  ;  and  no  matter  what 
theirs — even  if  we  shall  restore  the  Compromise 
— WE  WILL  SAY  TO  THE  SOUTHERN  DISUNIONISTS, 
WE  WON'T  GO  OUT  OF  THE  UNION,  AND  YOU 
SHAN'T  !  !  !  [This  was  the  climax  ;  the  audi 
ence  rose  to  its  feet  en  masse,  applauded, 
stamped,  waved  handkerchiefs,  threw  hats  in 
the  air,  and  ran  riot  for  several  minutes.  The 
arch-enchanter  who  wrought  this  transforma 
tion  looked,  meanwhile,  like  the  personification 
of  political  justice.] 

But  let  us,  meanwhile,  appeal  to  the  sense 
and  patriotism  of  the  people,  and  not  to  their 
prejudices  ;  let  us  spread  the  floods  of  enthusi 
asm  here  aroused  all  over  these  vast  prairies, 
so  suggestive  of  freedom.  Let  us  commence 
by  electing  the  gallant  soldier  Governor  (Col 
onel)  Bissell  who  stood  for  the  honor  of  our 
State  alike  on  the  plains  and  amidst  the  chapar 
ral  of  Mexico  and  on  the  floor  of  Congress, 
while  he  defied  the  Southern  Hotspur  ;  and 
1 66 


"  Lincoln's  Lost  Speech" 

that  will  have  a  greater  moral  effect  than  all 
the  border  ruffians  can  accomplish  in  all  their 
raids  on  Kansas.  There  is  both  a  power  and  a 
magic  in  popular  opinion.  To  that  let  us  now 
appeal  ;  and  while,  in  all  probability,  no  resort 
to  force  will  be  needed,  our  moderation  and 
forbearance  will  stand  us  in  good  stead  when, 
if  ever,  WE  MUST  MAKE  AN  APPEAL  TO  BATTLE  AND 
TO  THE  GOD  OF  HOSTS  !  !  [Immense  applause 
and  a  rush  for  the  orator.] 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


CIR  MAR  21  1985 


JUK3   '64  -8  AM 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


60007^21,1 


